What's new

Mehsud Sacked

"Your contention I think (thought it seems to be ever-changing!) is that the Afghani Taliban are provided refuge in Pakistani Taliban areas of Waziristan, and then cause some trouble in the periphery of the Afghan East. That is possibly true.".

Whom your are addressing here Sir??? RR or me ?


"... But the Afghan East is only one of MANY fighting flashpoints within Afghanistan."

Yes. For instance, there's the Afghan south. Very bad. Helmand & Kandahar remain difficult. What nation borders this area? What is the heartland of the Taliban? Kandahar? Fascinating.

If super power US/NATO with all the latest weapons support could not succeed in controling only two areas Helmand and Kandahar how on earth every other offical from your side come and blam us for the same Sir ?
What are US and NATO doing there ?

Here you re-iterate a constant theme- a profound distinction between organizations. Instead, I see clear operational lines of authority extending from Omar through...whoever accepts the position after Mehsud. One issues orders. One follows or doesn't and gets fired, sacked, killed, whatever.
(quite possibly not, given the heady arrogance subsequently displayed by Mehsud).

Wow so you found Baituallah Meshud the part of Al-Qaeda as innocent beacuse he is killing innocent civilians in Pakistan and being backed by those who are in power in Afghanistan at the moment.

Baitullah is sacke beacuse he is part of Al-Qaeda and killing innocent, preparing suicide bombers who are blowing civilians.
 
.
"Your contention I think (thought it seems to be ever-changing!) is that the Afghani Taliban are provided refuge in Pakistani Taliban areas of Waziristan, and then cause some trouble in the periphery of the Afghan East. That is possibly true."

:lol::lol::lol: YOU THINK "POSSIBLY"??? Too rich, Road Runner!
No. That's my contention-wonderfully put excepting "some", "possibly" and that sanctuary extends along the entire periphery, not just Waziristan. With those modest amendments you may etch it in stone.

If you remove the "possibly" from that statement, then you're definitely wrong. I've already asked you to tell me how the Taliban can operate so far within Afghanistan when it is supposedly, according to you, all lying within Pakistan. How exactly do they travel to the war zones in the centre of Afghanistan and the West of Afghanistan? Toyota pickups? If so, the US is doing a VERY poor job of not taking them out. Do they live in the Afghani Pashtun villages and move slowly on foot an horseback closer to the warzones in the centre of Afghanistan? If so, they must have the support of the local Afghani populations who are sheltering them. Now using your definition of the term "sanctuary" (let me remind you this time - Definition of Sanctuary from Merriam-Webster - "2 a (1): a place of refuge and protection (2): a refuge for wildlife where predators are controlled and hunting is illegal b: the immunity from law attached to a sanctuary"), the Afghani populations MUST be giving them sanctuaries in this second case. So, there are two possibilities, either the US army is so incapable it cannot take out Toyota pickups carrying lots of military hardware, OR the Afghanis are giving the Taliban sanctuaries to go and fight in the central and Western Afghanistani provinces. There are no other alternatives.

"... But the Afghan East is only one of MANY fighting flashpoints within Afghanistan."

Yes. For instance, there's the Afghan south. Very bad. Helmand & Kandahar remain difficult. What nation borders this area? What is the heartland of the Taliban? Kandahar? Fascinating.

Fascinating indeed for someone with less than a cursory knowledge of the geography of the area. Waziristan borders only Pakhtia, not the Afghani South. Whilst Helmand could be explained by militants crossing over from somewhere like Dalbandin, the tribal areas cannot provide any sanctuary for any of the fighters in Helmand - they are too far away.

Let's assume though that all the border fighting is being done from Pakistani sanctuaries (much evidence to the contrary with Mullah Omar suggesting the Pakistani Taliban have not been doing any fighting in Afghanistan), but let's assume. How do you explain the rest of the map, with intense fighitng in Central Afghanistan, and Western Afghanistan's Farah province? Where are the sanctuaries for these places?

Here is the map. See those places with intense fighting in the centre of Afghanistan, what does your thus far lacklustre logic tell you about where that fighting is originating from?

bb4b3179e61dfca99593ab55f901a533.jpg


As for the reason why the fighting is in the border areas, and central and western Afghanistan, perhaps this map will help you to see the reason. It is an ethnic and tribal conflict with the Taliban (though not with Al Q who have different reasons).



"Mullah Omar is suggesting that the Pakistani Taliban have not been doing this, and have been staying in Pakistan."

Here you re-iterate a constant theme- a profound distinction between organizations. Instead, I see clear operational lines of authority extending from Omar through...whoever accepts the position after Mehsud. One issues orders. One follows or doesn't and gets fired, sacked, killed, whatever. At stake appears whether that relationship will continue and in that same manner. It seems we'll know if/when Omar finds a replacement. The cut of cloth and tribal affiliation of this individual will be interesting to note, if we're made aware of whom he is at all (quite possibly not, given the heady arrogance subsequently displayed by Mehsud).

Like I said before, and have always said, Pakistanis/Pakistani Taliban do contribute to some fighting in Afghanistan (the border areas in Pakhtia mainly, though as the Mullah Omar quote suggests, they've not done any fighting even there). However, the majority of the fighting in Afghanistan, against the US is done by AFGHANI Taliban who are based in Afghanistan. It is logistically impossible for Taliban based in Pakistan to be carrying out operations in central Afghanistan without those sanctuaries in Afghanistan itself. In conclusion, the majority of the fighting against the US in Afghanistan is carried out by Afghani Taliban with sanctuaries in Afghanistan. That is what the evidence suggests. The Pakistani Taliban have contributed minimally to any violence in Afghanistan.
 
.
Norwegian FM favours talks with Taliban

STOCKHOLM: Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere says he is in favour of the idea of holding negotiations with the Taliban, in order to achieve peace in Afghanistan, according to reports reaching here from Oslo Sunday.

"We lump Taliban together with all that is nasty and evil. (But) there are now many even in Parliament with a background in the Taliban movement," Stoere said in an interview with the Norwegian broadcaster NRK.

Only two weeks ago, the Norwegian foreign minister, with a Norwegian delegation, was attacked by terrorists at a hotel in Kabul where he stayed. A Norwegian journalist was killed and an official of the Norwegian Foreign Ministry was seriously wounded.

Negotiations with people who commit terrorist acts are demanding, but it is possible to draw up plans for a process where many of these circles are included, the Norwegian foreign minister said in the interview.

He added that such negotiations are important as a parallel to work aimed at improving security. - Online

Norway has deployed about 500 soldiers in Afghanistan under the leadership of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force. - Online
 
.
There is an established infrastructure within Pakistan which supports the Taliban. It's extensively developed after 28 years. The Taliban are enemies of the government of Afghanistan and NATO. Oh...and the Northern Alliance. Pakistan is an enemy of the Northern Alliance. Pakistan pursues strategic depth in Afghanistan as a mis-perceived security imperative using the Taliban as their miscreant proxies. In so doing, Pakistan creates more problems for herself than are resolved.

The only lingering question of supreme interest is whether Pakistan has abandoned it's ambitions for a Pashtun-dominated Taliban government in Kabul? A stable, independant, and sovereign Afghanistan wouldn't be in Pakistan's interests so, quite possibly, Pakistan has not.

So unfolds the story. Hope that helps.:)
 
. .
Here is the map. See those places with intense fighting in the centre of Afghanistan, what does your thus far lacklustre logic tell you about where that fighting is originating from?

bb4b3179e61dfca99593ab55f901a533.jpg

The extreme and high risk zones are concentrated along the Pakiatan border. The central and north Afghanistan is a low risk zone. It proves clearly that the taliban are operating close to the Pakistan border.
 
.
Ssssshhh....Road Runner's agenda won't allow for the obvious. Karma, you need to focus away from the border.

Road Runner has a modest case, though. Until NATO's less aggressive elements begin patrolling their areas w/ regularity, we won't actually know what's under the rock. That would include the north and west.
 
.
we should place a bounty on mehsud's head wanted dead or alive people there a desperate for money the locals would be able to take him out easier.
 
.
Jana,

I am not suggesting that Pakistan, or NATO for that matter, eschew contacts/talks with ALL Taliban factions - indeed, we should engage (and we have) with certain factions of the Taliban that might be amenable to negotiations and participation in some sort of political process (even if the goal of that process is the establishment of some sort of Shariah Law - the "Shariah Package" being designed for Swat by the GoP being an example).
 
.
we should place a bounty on mehsud's head wanted dead or alive people there a desperate for money the locals would be able to take him out easier.

Imran Khan has good book called Warrior race about the Pathans which I quite like. (Lots of nice pictures)

A story from it mentions how he tried to buy a dog but was refused and so he tried to donate the money he offered to a man as he looked poor.

The man replied he was not poor and walked off leaving Khan embarrassed and full of admiration.

Furthermore a Pathan would not sell out like you say as it goes against their honour.
 
.
Furthermore a Pathan would not sell out like you say as it goes against their honour.

What honor is there in protecting a terrorist? A man who is responsible for killing so many innocents?

I am only questioning your rationale here, not implying that the Tribal Pashtun actually believe the above to be acceptable.

My mother once justified a decision of hers that I considered "ethnically biased" (to put it nicely) by resorting to the argument of "its our culture". My answer to her at the time was that if "culture" demands something that so obviously negates basic human dignity, then "culture" must change.
 
.
There is an established infrastructure within Pakistan which supports the Taliban.

Correction, there was during Soviet times. Since 2001, there had been no Pakistani government support of the Taliban through any supply lines.

It's extensively developed after 28 years. The Taliban are enemies of the government of Afghanistan and NATO.

Taliban are enemies of the Northern Alliance. They were once allies of NATO when the Soviets had invaded. Much like Pakistan's relationship with the US which has it's ups and downs.

Oh...and the Northern Alliance. Pakistan is an enemy of the Northern Alliance.

That is the first fact you've quoted in this thread. Well done.

Pakistan pursues strategic depth in Afghanistan as a mis-perceived security imperative using the Taliban as their miscreant proxies. In so doing, Pakistan creates more problems for herself than are resolved.

Rubbish. Pakistan is interested in a stable Afghanistan so it can trade with central asia through it. That is the main reason. Stability. Strategic depth is just a bonus.

The only lingering question of supreme interest is whether Pakistan has abandoned it's ambitions for a Pashtun-dominated Taliban government in Kabul?

Why should Pakistan abandon such an ambition? The Pashtuns ARE Pakistan's allies. The Northern Alliance ARE India's allies. Why do you think Pakistan should side with the Northern Alliance?

Even you should be siding with the view for a Pashtun dominated government in Afghanistan being the "shining beacon of democracy" that you are, since the Pashtuns are the biggest ethnic group in Afghanistan forming around half the population. Therefore they should form around half of the governmental positions, yet the Afghani government is currently infested with Tajiks or compliant Uzbek and a couple of Pashtun puppet figures.

A stable, independant, and sovereign Afghanistan wouldn't be in Pakistan's interests so, quite possibly, Pakistan has not.

A stable (independent/soverign doesn't matter either way) Afghanistan is very much in Pakistan's interests. That was the reason for Bhutto supporting the Taliban in the first place.
 
.
The extreme and high risk zones are concentrated along the Pakiatan border. The central and north Afghanistan is a low risk zone. It proves clearly that the taliban are operating close to the Pakistan border.

Good God. If you're going to butt in half way through a thread, AT LEAST HAVE THE DECENCY TO READ WHAT'S BEEN SAID PREVIOUSLY! You just make everybody repeat the same things because you're too lazy. The Pashtuns are fighting the Afghani government because they have been marginalized from power by the Northern Alliance/pro India government. That is why ALL the Pashtun areas have a high risk of violence, not just along the border with Afghanistan, but in central Afghanistan, and even in western Farah province. It is clear that it is not only Pashtuns on the border with Pakistan that are fighting in Afghanistan, but Pashtuns in the North, and especially in the central parts of Afghanistan. You can see this by comparing the ethnic makeup map of Afghanistan with the violence map.
 
.
Ssssshhh....Road Runner's agenda won't allow for the obvious. Karma, you need to focus away from the border.

Assuming I have an agenda when you can't use any logical argument to counter my statements, seems a bit hypocritical. I'd say the one with the reasoned argument is the most neutral, the one whose argument has been disproved/doesn't make much sense wuld be the one with the agenda (your argument appears like this to me, since you haven't answered any of the points made).
 
.
What honor is there in protecting a terrorist? A man who is responsible for killing so many innocents?

First they're not educated people. Second, they need evidence. If none is provided, they consider people as guests. The Pathans are known for their hospitality.
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom