Well, we tried giving peace and talks a chance.
They want war, let's give it to them.
WOW. Welcome back mate.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well, we tried giving peace and talks a chance.
They want war, let's give it to them.
And then God punished them through taliban"Back in 1990-91, when Nawaz Sharif was in power for the first time, he brokered a deal between various Mujahideen factions. The deal was facilitated by the Saudis and solemnised in Mecca. These Mujahideen took an oath in front of the Holy Kaaba that they would shun hostilities and end the bloody orgy in Afghanistan. Ironically, even before these fundamentalist leaders had landed in Kabul, the deal had been violated. The internecine war between the various Mujahideen factions intensified into an even more ferocious conflagration." Afghanistan’s elusive peace. By Lal Khan.
"The Afghans never fail to humour their hosts, possibly for the sake of diplomacy, and even sign peace accords and agree to power-sharing. But none of these agreements have been implemented fully so far, not even the one Mujahideen leaders agreed on in the early '90s in the Holy Ka'aba in Mecca. And there's no reason to think this one will".
"They would remember how all Afghan mujahideen leaders got together at the Haram Sharif in Makkah and made a pledge in the shadow of the Holy Ka’aba that they would not fight among themselves and work together to bring peace and enforce Sharia in Afghanistan. The pledge was forgotten when these mujahideen leaders returned to Pakistan". Afghanistan: the new strategy. By Rahimullah Yusufzai
"In the recent past to which we were contemporary, the government of the Mujahideen was setp in Peshawar, outside Afghanistan, and everyone hailed it and blessed and congratulated it, and no one objected. And many of those who today object to the Islamic state of Iraq "because it is not empowered" - or so they claim - were among those who applauded, congratulated, and hailed the government of Mujahideen in Peshawar, and moreover, the Saudi regime - which is hostile to the Islamic State of Iraq --- opened the Ka'aba to its members to swear to observe unity inside it, but the promise-making inside the Ka'aba was of no help in preventing the breaking of the promise after leaving it". Words of Ayman al-Zawahiri Vol 1. Page 282.
Looking at it differently, they have not been able to attack the US in the last 15 years. It happened only once, before the war on terror began. Since then, US soil has been untouchable.
They were able to attack the US back then, because nobody expected an attack, or prepared against terror attacks. It's a different story now, at least WRT the US. With India too, the terrorists who shot people randomly in Mumbai more than 5 years back have not been able to do so again.
Pakistan is different - for one thing, all the terrorists are within their own country, so they cannot simply seal off the boders and coasts like India, or simply implement homeland security measures like the US, to prevent undesirables from getting in. They are already in, they grew up within. Even if a few terrorists sneaked into India, their days are numbered, because they cannot live among the people with their help and support. They are foreigners with a foreign ideology, and police or RR will kill them soon. But in Pak, these terrorists live among the people, and are 'at home' with them.
Secondly, the ideology of the terrorists, and their eventual aim resonates with many pakistanis. Even on this forum, most Pakistanis do not unambigously say "we don't want sharia or talibanisation, we want to be a liberal democracy''. Instead, they do all sorts of contortions to make the case that TTP's sharia is not "real sharia", pakistani state is compatible with sharia and islam, they want sharia but not through terrorism, and so on. But for other countries that were the victims of islamic terrorism, the resolve was absolute - we don't want your system, we don't want your laws, we don't even want you. So it is easier for USA and India to battle islamic terrorism, for these reasons.
translation plzAnd this moron will never learn. I hate when people look for excuses. US or India or Afghanistan or others may be involved, but that is not the point, the point is, what we are doing about this? Is he expecting that they will stop from meddling into Pakistan after he blaming them? Is this a solution? He is a smart person but to come up with some solution, he has to let go his parochialism.
Nothing special; usual hogwash from this loser.translation plz
They do. Them attacking the heartland needed motivation.. that motivation came from the fact that the WTC towers represented the epitome of capitalism.They do not need any idea from outside agency to attack Kamra or Minhas. They were capable enough to attack heartland of US 15 years back. Their skill to attack strategic target have grown manifold since then.
They do. Them attacking the heartland needed motivation.. that motivation came from the fact that the WTC towers represented the epitome of capitalism.
If only attacking targets was important.. they could have hit any fighter base or otherwise. These specific targets were pointed out to them by "concerned" parties.
They do. Them attacking the heartland needed motivation.. that motivation came from the fact that the WTC towers represented the epitome of capitalism.
If only attacking targets was important.. they could have hit any fighter base or otherwise. These specific targets were pointed out to them by "concerned" parties.
By that you can only mean India, since no other foreign power had an interest in hitting that base in particular.
From an insurgents' POV, when they carry out an audacious attack, they want to achieve maximum damage. Kamra and Minhas would achieve that, than any random air base. The AEWACS cost a lot more than a fighter. And blowing up the assembly line at Kamra would also have had a huge economic impact for the military. Not to mention the loss of morale for the military, and the gain in morale for the insurgents.
Hit the target which will bring maximum economic or personnel loss to the enemy, that's only logical. Which is why GHQ was attacked, rather than any random army camp. They don't need outside powers to tell them that much.
And since they have Pakistani ex military professionals helping them, they will surely know what to hit, to cause maximum economic loss and morale loss.
I'm not getting into the question of whether India motivated them or not, but I'm saying that it didn't really need India's directives for them to strike where they did. And so, invoking Occam's good old razor...
Very well said first thing first GOP should kick all afghanis out of Pakistan start from ISB and dump them into Afghanistan, those who who resist should be hanged to teach them a lesson if EU or Any Human Rights come in to speak BS load a Tanker of these kabuli thugs and ship to EU.we are not getting any thing frm these sheep headers infact all of the wheat , cotton, cements , things of daily use go from Pakistan these namak haram should thank us instead of siding with our enemies ... anyways if they have any problem then they are free to **** themself in afghanistan with naswar in their ***..we will be happy for these kablis if they leave Pakistan