Kabul denied route for India trade

[Developereo]

And what was the alternative at the time?

Recognizing the warlords and criminals whose atrocities and crime had reached a point at which the Taliban were welcomed when they took charge?

The Taliban in fact came across as an extremely favorable option compared to the Northern Alliance warlords.

True.

IIRC, Mullah Omar was only a soft-spoken cleric when he was approached about a warlord abducting and raping a young girl. He pulled together a band of fighters, defeated the warlord, and the Taliban were born.

 

[Awesome]

The headline is misleading in the first place.

Infact India has been denied a route through Pakistan.

What Afghanistan has to offer India in trade as export??? The dry fruite??

And if Indians are so eager why dont they allow Nepal, and BD trade route to Pakistan ???

Thats the trickery they play... Nobody would care much if Pakistan denies something to India, its business as usual, but Afghanistan for some reason has to be pampered.

 

[Spring Onion]

Thats the trickery they play... Nobody would care much if Pakistan denies something to India, its business as usual, but Afghanistan for some reason has to be pampered.

when the Afghan traders will miss the extra money they make along with those from Pakistan through smuggling in case India flood Afghan market then i don’t think so this fake pampering by India would do any good to the Afghans.

over 90 % food and other supplies to Afghans are going from Pakistan legally and illegally in both the cases Afghans are benefiting.

The only cheap thing India can offer to Afghans is medicines and that can be smuggled through Iran into Afghanistan as is being done in our case

Pakistani currency is acceptable in Afghanistan during open trade you can buy anything there Paying pak rupees.

Its Pakistan who can make difference not India.

 

[S-2]

You need a link to your five year old article.

Then you need to read about the latest wedding crashers- the taliban.

Mine blew under a truckload of people attending a wedding in Helmand the other day. Killed over twenty at last count.

As the taliban routinely target civilians to increase their sense of insecurity it's difficult to determine whether they may have been intentionally targeted here but there's certainly good reason to believe so.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Mine blew under a truckload of people attending a wedding in Helmand the other day. Killed over twenty at last count.

As the taliban routinely target civilians to increase their sense of insecurity it's difficult to determine whether they may have been intentionally targeted here but there's certainly good reason to believe so.

My understanding is that the mine was intended for coalition and Afghan troops, and the civilians were 'accidental collateral damage'.

Any reason to believe the wedding party was deliberately targeted for being a wedding party?

 

[Spring Onion]

You need a link to your five year old article.

Then you need to read about the latest wedding crashers- the taliban.

Mine blew under a truckload of people attending a wedding in Helmand the other day. Killed over twenty at last count.

As the taliban routinely target civilians to increase their sense of insecurity it's difficult to determine whether they may have been intentionally targeted here but there's certainly good reason to believe so.

But there is a big difference between mines laid out along side roads and blind bombardment by US killing civilians.

Taliban dont need to target civilians to increase their sense of insecurity the blind bombardments by US does the trick.
Besides reports by your own and western media accpet that Taliban are covering about 75% of Afghanistan.

The people of Afghanistan thought US will liberate them but alas that was a wishful thinking and now US has not place in their minds and hearts.

 

[S-2]

"My understanding is that the mine was intended for coalition and Afghan troops..."

And you know this how?

Let's be clear- two types, either command detonated- in which case there's no disputing the intended target or mechanical trigger (pressure plate or trip-wire).

If pressure-plated/trip-wire then the intent of the taliban was to kill SOMEBODY...anybody.

Get it?

The taliban can't predict who will travel the roads. Clearly civilians use them constantly. That is how those of this party died. If so, when placing a device that is pressure or trigger detonated, how do you discriminate?

Rhetorically- you can't. If so, then what does that say as you place and arm this mine in this manner- that you recognize the liklihood that somebody OTHER than ISAF might detonate such...?

...and are cool with that possibility?

 

[S-2]

Nobody has yet accused NATO of "blind bombardment".

Hekmatyar did so to Kabul though. Remember?

Jana, HRW has documented cases of the taliban targeting afghans. Do you understand? T-A-R-G-E-T-I-N-G.

Do you believe that Afghan school girls were the collateral damage of acid attacks upon NATO soldiers?

There are sound terror principles behind such.

HRW has also documented the use of human shields. Do you agree with such behavior?

I'm sorry that you're steeped in mythology. You need to stay abreast of the facts.

The facts are that the taliban have killed most of the afghan civilians dying today in this conflict. The U.N. and HRW both say so. Can you say otherwise with authority? If not, then you should accept this reality...

...if you can.

The facts are that the taliban have intentionally targeted civilians. Nobody has yet accused ISAF of doing so. Shall you be the first? If so, I look forward to your allegations and proof.

The facts are that the taliban have utilized human shields on numerous occasions and have been documented as such. You may reference HRW here-

The Human Cost: The Consequences of Insurgent Attacks In Afghanistan- HRW

To learn more about the effects of airstrikes, read here-

Troops In Contact: Airstrikes and Civilian Deaths in Afghanistan- HRW

I try to be fair and provide as much sourcing as I can- good or bad. Do you do the same?

 

[Kasrkin]

If pressure-plated/trip-wire then the intent of the taliban was to kill SOMEBODY...anybody.

Get it?

We don't have any proof as to your assertion that it was not manually controlled. Even manually controlled IEDs can result in accidental or unintended damage to civilians. It has happened in Pakistan, trucks loaded with civilians but resembling army vehicles have been hit. It is hard for the Taliban to very accurately identify targets given the ranges where they place themselves to trigger the device, which can be as much as 800 meters. Terrorist videos provide a reasonable insight into such particulars.

The question here comes down the callousness or disregard with regards to civilian lives. Be that in a NATO air raid or Taliban IED ambush. Its not like coalition forces have been 100% certain of no civilian casualties when launching their air campaigns. Evidently, the US has made serious mistakes in this regard and that has been acknowledged. No ones operational techniques are 100% civilian-casualty proof.

Evidently the Taliban have more to answer for in this regard. But that doesn't mean that casualties inflicted by coalition forces on the Afghans, which are still significant, should be ignored or justified.

 

[S-2]

"...that doesn't mean that casualties inflicted by coalition forces on the Afghans, which are still significant, should be ignored or justified."

And who is doing such?

Let me know the next time a general-officer equivalent from the taliban pays his respects to a village that's been "accidently" mortared or from which a truck loaded with wedding guests was attacked and makes apology and compensation.

I see justification, alright. I see that you've developed expertise to comment on the visual observation ranges of command-detonated devices and have decided that wedding trucks and legitimate targets are the same...

...from eight hundred meters. That may or may not be a correct range.

It may or may not be the preferred stand-off range from which to both detonate and observe. I don't know. Somehow, you do.

Personally, I suspect a myriad of ranges and methods. I also suspect that the calculation of terror plays into the mining of roads. There's value to such in strangling communities in fear.

I see plenty of concern about civilian casualties from NATO despite the evidence that suggests we've the lesser role to play here and with no instance of shielding or intent charged against us.

There lies a huge difference in how this war has been fought.

 

[Kasrkin]

I see justification, alright. I see that you've developed expertise to comment on the visual observation ranges of command-detonated devices and have decided that wedding trucks and legitimate targets are the same...from eight hundred meters. That may or may not be a correct range.

I don't pretend to hold expertise. I merely offered a counter-argument to yours, showing how its possible that manually controlled IEDs can also result in unintended casualties, while modestly offering a source that can be insightful in this regard. All of which still holds.

Personally, I suspect a myriad of ranges and methods. I also suspect that the calculation of terror plays into the mining of roads. There's value to such in strangling communities in fear.

Personally, I suspect that you're given to project a partial view-point on the issue. A Taliban sympathizer could argue the same thing, insisting that he believes the significant casualties caused by the coalition is designed to 'strangle communities in fear'. But thats just his, or your, views.

I don't wish to defend the Taliban, but counter-narrative is that the Taliban, much like the US military, has also realized the importance of winning the support of the local populace and denying such to the enemy.

Here are articles from the American and British medias respectively.

New Taliban rule book calls for fewer suicide attacks - CNN.com

Taliban issues 'Code of Conduct' to fighters in Afghanistan - Telegraph

I see plenty of concern about civilian casualties from NATO despite the evidence that suggests we've the lesser role to play here

Evidently, such concern has not been deemed sufficient in the past by some important US commanders themselves. Also, a lesser role does not mean no role at all.

There lies a huge difference in how this war has been fought.

In my humble opinion, the 'difference' is not huge enough. For every 5 innocents killed by the militants, roughly 4 are killed by coalition or Afghan government forces. It is the Taliban who're internationally recognized as the terrorists, not the US, British or Afghan armies. The difference is there, but not such as to give any one side reason for self-righteous contentment.

U.N. report: Civilian casualties hit record high in Afghan conflict - CNN.com

Back to the topic now, I hope.

 

[A1Kaid]

Rant - really AM? Then why hinder Afghan - India trade when it clearly benefits Pakistan as well? Why did Pakistan not reciprocate when India granted Pakistan Most Favored Nation (MFN) status in 1995?
Look at what has been written so far by Pakistani members; they'd rather take the scenic route through mountain country making Pakistani exports more expensive and less competitive.

"Look at what has been written so far by Pakistani members; they'd rather take the scenic route through mountain country making Pakistani exports more expensive and less competitive."-Death By Chocolate

Death By Chocolate,


Well speaking for myself there are several wise reasons why I prefer building our transit trade route with CAR's via China and not Afghanistan.


1) China is a pro-Pakistan and friendly nation, and we already have a great partnership with them.

2) China unlike Afghanistan is far stable and economically prosperous and a more viable trade route. Currently Afghanistan poses a major security and safety risk for our delivery personnel such as kidnapping, hostage taking, smuggling/looting, road side bombs. With China we do not have these worries and the conditions are far greater for us to traverse there.

3) Why should Pakistan build it's most important and only transit trade route to CARs through one of the most unstable nations in the World, Afghanistan? Afghanistan (historically) repeatedly gets invaded and the political situation there is unpredictable. With China we do not have these worries...

4) Major additions to the Karakorum highway would benefit Pakistan, CAR's, and the Uyghur Muslims, we could engage in trilateral trading through this major highway.

5) This region is prone to Earthquakes, if our transit trade route is in Afghanistan it would be very difficult to fix and rebuilt it as Afghanistan is very poor and lacks any highway maintenance capabilities. China on the other hand is far greater in this field.


6)Many other reasons as well...

they'd rather take the scenic route through mountain country making Pakistani exports more expensive and less competitive.-Death By Chocolate

It's not about scenic routes, besides both Afghanistan and China routes are 'scenic' and equally mountainous. Also you mention it would "make Pakistani exports more expensive and less competitive" how do you reach this conjecture. As far as I'm concerned that is false, there's not a great difference in distance via Afghanistan or via China to reach CAR's...

 

[arihant]

The headline is misleading in the first place.

Infact India has been denied a route through Pakistan.

What Afghanistan has to offer India in trade as export??? The dry fruite??

And if Indians are so eager why dont they allow Nepal, and BD trade route to Pakistan ???

I heard about Train Route for that. It can be use for Trade also. New Delhi accepted proposal but some pakistani were against this.

 

[dbc]

Death By Chocolate,


It's not about scenic routes; besides both Afghanistan and China routes are 'scenic' and equally mountainous. Also you mention it would "make Pakistani exports more expensive and less competitive" how do you reach this conjecture. As far as I'm concerned that is false, there's not a great difference in distance via Afghanistan or via China to reach CAR's...

Just a guess to be honest, but I did assume that Chinese, Indian and Iranian manufacturers can produce at a lower cost due to sheer economies of scale. I also read about Iranians incentives for Afghan /India /CAR trade - I can't find the link anymore. Added to this the extra cost of moving your products across the Himalayan range (higher altitude + longer route= more fuel). Also from Afghanistan you have direct access to three CAR states Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. I also checked the Pakistani commerce website with one or two exceptions there is nothing in your list of exports that give Pakistan a unique advantage over the other countries in your region that competes for CAR trade.