22 killed in US missile strike in N Waziristan

[S-2]

"The insurgency in Afghanistan is primarily an Aghan one, not a Pakistani one."

Yes, the insurgency in Afghanistan is primarily an Afghan rebellion. Despite having Uzbek, chechen, arab, and others fighting inside Afghanistan, this is an Afghan dominated insurgency.

So?

That's not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is from where these men of all types today find sanctuary from the battle and have since early 2002. That's certainly been inside Pakistan.

Elizabeth Rubin has contributed some superb pieces to the war's journalism records. Here's an excellent article she wrote from 2006 that you may find of interest-

In The Land Of The Taliban-NYT

 

[maximus]

There's nothing delusional about my assessment that Pakistan's sovereignty is endangered from within by foreign forces whom your nation acquiesced to allowing entry in 2001-02.

You are now at war with yourselves and these men. They will keep what they've taken and more. I care less whether I irritate you or not. The more salient issue to me here is determining who is an enemy of the Pakistani state and who isn't.

It tells me much about your nation and serves as a broad (but somewhat skewed) barometer of your nation in general.

Thank you for your contribution to this study.

It's been invaluable.

Whatever dude... Just keep up the delusional thinking. No one really cares. No one gives a dime about you think or believe.

 

[aimarraul]

"The insurgency in Afghanistan is primarily an Aghan one, not a Pakistani one."

Yes, the insurgency in Afghanistan is primarily an Afghan rebellion. Despite having Uzbek, chechen, arab, and others fighting inside Afghanistan, this is an Afghan dominated insurgency.

So?

That's not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is from where these men of all types today find sanctuary from the battle and have since early 2002. That's certainly been inside Pakistan.

Elizabeth Rubin has contributed some superb pieces to the war's journalism records. Here's an excellent article she wrote from 2006 that you may find of interest-

In The Land Of The Taliban-NYT

 

[roadrunner]

They don't play it like that.

Those men wouldnt leave Afghanistan. They'd blend in. They're guerillas.

There's many reasons why they wouldn't leave Afghanistan.

One is the distance some would have to travel to get to their targets.

Perhaps those attacks on the border could be cross border related. The ones deep in Afghanistan territory I doubt originate from any Afghani in Pakistan.

There has been a problem with refugee camps, however. What should Pakistan do? Close the refugee camps?

Development is the problem. the government of Afghanistan is another. There's many things it would seem. Adding 30,000 troops wouldn't help matters much.

 

[hasang20]

seriously Pakistan is a NUCLEAR POWER we should start testing ICBMs with the range of 9000miles else this wont stop enough is enough c'mom guys.

 

[S-2]

Yes. There are groups in the interior who are committed by circumstance to stay in Afghanistan. Those which must operate far differently than the more active combat zones along Afghanistan's southern and eastern peripheries. In those regions it pays to use sanctuary wherever possible to avoid NATO CAS and attack aviation. Supplies can be stockpiled and troops reconstituted in supreme safety but for PREDATOR. All this near key targets like Jalalabad, Kabul, Kandahar and Lashkar Gal.

It allows larger scaled operations to be planned and assembled safely.

Were Afghanistan an internal insurgency with no access to sanctuary in Pakistan it's likely that this war would be over even as ineptly as NATO/ISAF have approached their work. The networks of bases are very extensive and it's impossible to diminish their importance to the Afghan insurgency, IMHO.

 

[A1Kaid]

America must understand

It can kill the Taliban but it cannot defeat the Taliban.

The military and continuous air strikes and the loss of innocent life is a good recruiting tool for the Taliban to raise more armed men and continue to fight with the western forces in Afghanistan.

Hence this counter productive policy will assure a longer time required in Afghanistan to fight Taliban forces and militants that apparently pose a threat to US national security still after 8 years later of War and occupation.

Quite frankly, the tides are changing, and the time will come soon where the entire region will get fed up of both of these two extremist belligerents the United States and the Taliban.

When a new Pakistani leadership comes to power, one with an iron spine and a courageous spirit then we will begin to see a different region.


They say they are there to fight terrorism and to capture Tim Osman because they suffered a "terrorist attack" on September 11. 2001. However, their government and the Illuminati have manufactured these crises and then they provide the world the solution, this allows the Freemason Led-United States Government and NWO Agents to forward their agenda quite easily...


So how do we respond to such a grave global threat? I will leave you to ponder this great answer as you read the Quran Inshallah...


The real threat to the world is not so much Taliban and this "Islamofascist" threat, but the ultimate and grave threat comes to us from Western extremism.

Western extremism follows "Do what we say, not act as we do" Western extremism supports dictatorships when it is favorable for them, I.E. Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, Emir Abdullah of Jordan, and the Saudi Royal Family in Saudi Arabia, and Shah of Iran.

EDIT: Western extremism is manipulative and pursues it's Geo-Political agenda with a large disregard for life. They are hungry for resources, and seek to destabilize countries where it is most favorable for them and most beneficial for their New World Order objectives, hence the phrase "all opposition shall be crushed..."

Pakistanis and Muslims you must heed my warning!

 

[belarusian]

Just registered for this forum after reading it for the past week. This is actually very scary stuff. I think in the long run a lot of blood is going to be spilled inside and outside of Pakistan. I certainly wish you all the best. It's very unfortunate. You are not a lucky people.

A few questions:

Is it true that the government of Pakistan has lost sovereign control of its own territory?

Is it true that the government of Pakistan cannot plausibly claim to reassert sovereign control over its own territory in the foreseeable future?

where do you draw the line in this process of the erosion of sovereignty? When does it stop? I think the more sovereignty you lose the more you are going to lose. Isn't Pakistan in the same class of failed states like somalia or lebanon or the congo?

here's a quote from wikipedia:

De jure, or legal, sovereignty is the theoretical right to exercise exclusive control over one's subjects. De facto, or actual, sovereignty is concerned with whether control in fact exists. It can be approached in two ways:

1) Does the governing power have sufficient strength (police, etc.) to compel its subjects to obey it? (If so, a type of de facto sovereignty called coercive sovereignty exists.)

2) Are the subjects of the governing power in the habit of obeying it?

 

[roadrunner]

Just registered for this forum after reading it for the past week. This is actually very scary stuff. I think in the long run a lot of blood is going to be spilled inside and outside of Pakistan. I certainly wish you all the best. It's very unfortunate. You are not a lucky people.

That's true. Of all the countries in the world to be located next to. It had to be India.

A few questions:

Is it true that the government of Pakistan has lost sovereign control of its own territory?

American news channels really don't know what they're reporting it seems.

95% of Pakistan is legally under federal control. 5% is legally autonomous.

That was the deal when Pakistan formed.

Is it true that the government of Pakistan cannot plausibly claim to reassert sovereign control over its own territory in the foreseeable future?

Wait up now.

FATA is part of soverign Pakistani territory (Article 1). However the laws of the Parliament do not apply there necessarily.

where do you draw the line in this process of the erosion of sovereignty? When does it stop? I think the more sovereignty you lose the more you are going to lose. Isn't Pakistan in the same class of failed states like somalia or lebanon or the congo?

Pakistan never lost any soverignty. I don't get why you're pedalling the soverignty line. Is that the excuse you're getting in the US?

here's a quote from wikipedia:

De jure, or legal, sovereignty is the theoretical right to exercise exclusive control over one's subjects. De facto, or actual, sovereignty is concerned with whether control in fact exists. It can be approached in two ways:

1) Does the governing power have sufficient strength (police, etc.) to compel its subjects to obey it? (If so, a type of de facto sovereignty called coercive sovereignty exists.)

2) Are the subjects of the governing power in the habit of obeying it?

The land of FATA is part of the soverign nation of Pakistan.

Article 1.

"The territories of Pakistan shall comprise
1) The provinces of Balochistan, Northwest Frontier, Punab and Sind
2) The Islamabad Capital Territory
3) FATA
4) such states and territories as are and.............. "

 

[Patriot]

Just registered for this forum after reading it for the past week. This is actually very scary stuff. I think in the long run a lot of blood is going to be spilled inside and outside of Pakistan. I certainly wish you all the best. It's very unfortunate. You are not a lucky people.

A few questions:

Is it true that the government of Pakistan has lost sovereign control of its own territory?

Is it true that the government of Pakistan cannot plausibly claim to reassert sovereign control over its own territory in the foreseeable future?

where do you draw the line in this process of the erosion of sovereignty? When does it stop? I think the more sovereignty you lose the more you are going to lose. Isn't Pakistan in the same class of failed states like somalia or lebanon or the congo?

here's a quote from wikipedia:

De jure, or legal, sovereignty is the theoretical right to exercise exclusive control over one's subjects. De facto, or actual, sovereignty is concerned with whether control in fact exists. It can be approached in two ways:

1) Does the governing power have sufficient strength (police, etc.) to compel its subjects to obey it? (If so, a type of de facto sovereignty called coercive sovereignty exists.)

2) Are the subjects of the governing power in the habit of obeying it?

1. Nope, GOP/Army still have full control on Pakistan but you must understand that GOP is loosing public support because they think that GOP can't even protect their citizens from Predator strikes.
2.Answer Given Above.Army has full control over Pakistan except maybe few agencies of FATA.
3.Well, actually Pakistan is not a failed state.Pakistan is weak right now because of War on Terror.These American self-styled experts have again upheld the journalistic tradition of spreading half-truths, lies and factually incorrect hogwash about Pakistan and calling it a failed state.GOP/Army is loosing public support because of United States.Actually, GOP has real sovereignty here so they don't have to deploy army in civilian areas like US is deployed in AFG and Iraq because the government does not have control.

 

[Vinod2070]

That's true. Of all the countries in the world to be located next to. It had to be India.

This is funny.

First, Pakistan has always been a part of India pre-1947, where else it would be located now!

Second, these problems are coming from your Western border, not Eastern.

The only unfortunate part throughout history has been it's invasion from the North-Western direction.

 

[Omar1984]

This is funny.

First, Pakistan has always been a part of India pre-1947, where else it would be located now!

Second, these problems are coming from your Western border, not Eastern.

The only unfortunate part throughout history has been it's invasion from the North-Western direction.

First, there was no such thing as "India" before the British came. It was a bunch of independent states in South Asia, the British came combined all these states together, saw the Indus river flowing through Punjab and Sindh, and called their empire Brirish India. You Indians kept the name British gave you, we didn't.

Second, there's dozens of Indian consulates in Afghanistan and no Indian will ever deny that so yea theres a strong Indian presence in our western border.

Finally, when you call invasions, Muslims coming to preach the word of Islam to the natives of North West (present day Pakistan), a thousand years ago... then we're glad they brought Islam to us... no point in crying what happened thousand years ago.. Pakistanis are very happy Islam was brought to them.

 

[Omar1984]

Many westerners dont know the difference betwen Al Queda and Taliban.

Al Queda are foreigners, mostly Arabs, led by Osama Bin Laden who is against U.S for more than a decade now.

Taliban are locals, not foreigners, who want to set Sharia law in their land.

You can get rid of Al Queda but you cant realy get rid of Taliban because they are locals to the land and their mindset will never change.

 

[Vinod2070]

First, there was no such thing as "India" before the British came. It was a bunch of independent states in South Asia, the British came combined all these states together, saw the Indus river flowing through Punjab and Sindh, and called their empire Brirish India. You Indians kept the name British gave you, we didn't.

Second, there's dozens of Indian consulates in Afghanistan and no Indian will ever deny that so yea theres a strong Indian presence in our western border.

Finally, when you call invasions, Muslims coming to preach the word of Islam to the natives of North West (present day Pakistan), a thousand years ago... then we're glad they brought Islam to us... no point in crying what happened thousand years ago.. Pakistanis are very happy Islam was brought to them.

Your facts are all wrong.

India existed for thousands of years. The British had nothing to do with it.

There are no dozens of consulates in Afghanistan. I think there are just 4-5. Pakistan has as many!

 

[Omar1984]

Your facts are all wrong.

India existed for thousands of years. The British had nothing to do with it.

There are no dozens of consulates in Afghanistan. I think there are just 4-5. Pakistan has as many!

So now you're in denial?

Read up the history of your india. There was no such thing as india before the british invaded south asia. Check anywhere. Your india is just as new as Pakistan!

As for the indian consulates in Afghanistan, a brother from our western province posted more than a dozen names of indian consulates in Afghanistan..do a search on this forum for the names of indian consulates in Afganistan. Every Pakistani, especially from our western provinces, know theres a strong indian prescence in Afghanistan and also in our western provinces of Pakistan causing trouble.