What's new

Pakistan military is slowly bleeding America to death in Afghanistan: Former US Army Colonel 26 Aug,

It's better to read up on the subject u start arguing about instead of just diving in head first and looking like a fool...see below, this is taken straight from Wikipedia, which honestly would've taken u 5-10 min to find and read instead of making this blunder of a post

"After the Soviet Union intervened and occupied Afghanistan in 1979, Islamic mujahideen fighters engaged in war with those Soviet forces.

Pakistan's President Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq feared that the Soviets were planning to invade also Balochistan, Pakistan, so he sent Akhtar Abdur Rahman to Saudi Arabia to garner support for the Afghan resistance against Soviet occupation forces. A while later, the U.S. CIA and Saudi Arabic General Intelligence Directorate (GID) funneled funding and equipment through the PakistanI Inter-Service Intelligence Agency (ISI) to the Afghan mujahideen.

About 90,000 Afghans, including Mohammed Omar, were trained by Pakistan's ISI during the 1980s. The British Professor Carole Hillenbrand concluded that the Taliban have arisen from those US-Saudi-Pakistan-supported mujahideen"


^see that name highlighted in red up there...keep that fresh in ur mind along with the fact that "Mujahideen" was a coalition of various different militant factions with various different warlords...
...now continue reading below

"After the fall of the Soviet-backed regime of Mohammad Najibullah in 1992, many Afghan political parties, but not Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's Hezb-e Islami, Hizb-e Wahdat, and Ittihad-i Islami, in April agreed on a peace and power-sharing agreement, the Peshawar Accord, which created the Islamic State of Afghanistan and appointed an interim government for a transitional period; but that Islamic State and its government were paralyzed right from the start, due to rivalling groups contending for total power over Kabul and Afghanistan."

^after these various factions collectively called "Mujahideen" fought off the Soviet Union and were able to form their own government...infighting started and a power struggle ensued...also known as Afghan Civil War...
...read below

"From 1996 to 2001, the Taliban held power over roughly three quarters of Afghanistan, and enforced there a strict interpretation of Sharia, or Islamic law. The Taliban emerged in 1994 as one of the prominent factions in the Afghan Civil War and largely consisted of students (talib) from the Pashtun areas of eastern and southern Afghanistan who had been educated in traditional Islamic schools, and fought during the Soviet–Afghan War. Under the leadership of Mohammed Omar, the movement spread throughout most of Afghanistan, sequestering power from the Mujahideen warlords."

Here is the link in case u want to verify urself the information.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban

So what were u saying about that the Taliban were never part of the Mujahideen during the soviet period?

Hopefully after reading that above u now understand the following key points...
- The West/KSA/Pakistan together created the Mujahideen to fight off Soviet Union
- Mujahideen were a group of various different factions(militant groups under various warlords)
- Once the Soviet Union was defeated, the Mujahideen(group of factions) tried to form a united government.
- The united government fell apart and a power struggle between the various factions of Mujahideen started.
- From that power struggle one faction(of previously Mujahideen) emerged dominant/victorious, which became known as the Taliban

US wasn't involved in the period after the Soviet Union was defeated bcuz the US goal had been met. The presence of Soviet Union in Afghanistan was a concern to both US/Pak bcuz for Pak it was right next door and for US...well US opposed Soviet Union...so the goals of both countries aligned and hence they together created the Mujahideen.

Once the Soviet Union was defeated the US didn't need to do anything further but for Pakistan it was still "in our backyard". There was a mess leftover...a vacuum. Pakistan didn't want all these militant factions left unchecked right next door(a rogue military of sorts) nor did they want a non Pakistan friendly government forming in Afghanistan bcuz that would be a disaster for Pakistan(India on one front and a possibly hostile Afghanistan on the other)
So logically at first Pakistan tried to help Mujahideen create a united government in Afghanistan...this didn't work
...once the infighting did start...naturally the next step was to back the faction that was most likely to win...to ensure a peaceful western front.

As demonstrated above it is not dishonest. Taliban were part of the Mujahideen, which were together created by US/Pakistan/KSA.

If u mean to say that US didn't provide support to the Taliban after Soviet Union was defeated and left Afghanistan then u would be correct...but idk why that would be necessary bcuz I didn't make any claim on the contrary.

In short these militant groups(including Taliban were created together by US/KSA/Pak)...then US pulled out after its goals were achieved and Pakistan continued bcuz Pakistan's goals had not yet been achieved.

Right...but important how? R u implying that bcuz Pakistan nurtured/supported Taliban...then somehow this means that they are indeed playing a double game?

Like they are fighting the very group they created...but bcuz they created them so they are also supporting them?

By that reasoning...US also created them...and US is now also fighting them...so if we apply ur reasoning...US is also playing a double game?

Isn't it convenient how all these strawman arguments are used to demonize Pakistan but somehow the same logic/reasoning/thought never applies to the US?

US is a superpower...Pakistan is not...plain and simple

Right...any person anywhere can claim anything...what's ur point? It is the official position of a country that matters. So that would be a dumb thing to do if the US top brass actually uses that approach, which I highly doubt they do.

Also I see that u conveniently ignored answering the part in my last post about the US government differentiating between the Taliban...I remember u took an issue with Pakistanis on this forum doing that same thing...care to answer?

Unlike most others here on PDF, you seems to have a good understanding of the historic events.
I have already pointed out that
  • Mullah Omar was a Mujahedin
  • He fought the Soviets
  • He is the Taliban.
However: there was no faction calling themselves Taliban, fighting the Soviets.
The fact that the US may have trained Mullah Omar, did not make the Taliban a viable faction.
Only the massive support from Pakistan allowed them to succeed .
 
.
Unlike most others here on PDF, you seems to have a good understanding of the historic events.
I have already pointed out that
  • Mullah Omar was a Mujahedin
  • He fought the Soviets
  • He is the Taliban.
However: there was no faction calling themselves Taliban, fighting the Soviets.
The fact that the US may have trained Mullah Omar, did not make the Taliban a viable faction.
Only the massive support from Pakistan allowed them to succeed .
Actually no...

Read my last post again...or nvm I'll just copy it here again
"The Taliban emerged in 1994 as one of the prominent factions in the Afghan Civil War and largely consisted of students (talib) from the Pashtun areas of eastern and southern Afghanistan who had been educated in traditional Islamic schools, and fought during the Soviet–Afghan War."

Did u think Mullah Omar just snapped his fingers and spawned armed/trained warriors out of thin air to fight off the rest of the Mujahideen factions?

No...they were the same militants that comprised the Mujahideen...just bcuz the Mujahideen fragmented/reorganized/rebranded doesn't make them a new militia that was created out of thin air
- Fragmented: infighting/power struggle began among the various factions comprising the Mujahideen
- Reorganized: Various militants and factions started to band together under Mullah Omar especially towards the end when his faction was getting an upper hand over others
- Rebranded: they called themselves the Taliban

In that same article I cited earlier, it also mentioned...

"The British Professor Carole Hillenbrand concluded that the Taliban have arisen from those US-Saudi-Pakistan-supported mujahideen"

...anyone well versed in history and this Mujahideen/Cold War saga would come to that same conclusion

U r confusing the Taliban's creation with Taliban's support. US did not support the Taliban(the rebranded entity post Soviet exit from Afghanistan)...but US did create them.

As for Pakistan supporting the Taliban as I mentioned before...yes Pakistan did. However initially Pakistan was in favor of a united Mujahideen government in Afghanistan and Pakistan played a role in setting it up. It was the Mujahideen themselves who couldn't keep it together and a civil war started...accordingly Pakistan realigned with the faction that seemed likely to win(Taliban) in order to have peaceful relations with whoever it is that comes to power.

Now then this tangent is settled...let's get back to the main topic I was initially discussing.
Which was "where is the proof that Pakistan is playing a double game?" There is proof of Pakistan fighting the Taliban but there is no solid evidence of Pakistan playing a "double game"...just some rants of ppl every now and then

1) As proof u brought up Benazir's statements...it was established that she wasn't in power nor did she have any solid info for her statements to hold any weight.
2) U brought up Pakistanis differentiating between the Taliban...as if that somehow implies a double game...
To this I countered that US officially differentiates between the Taliban and yet they are not accused of a double game
3) U brought up Pakistan's creation and support of Taliban as proof of Pakistan's double game
To this I countered that US also created/supported the Mujahideen(where Taliban emerged from) and again when US turns around and fights them that's fine...but somehow it is inconceivable that Pakistan can turn around and fight the militants it created/supported...there's just no way, Pakistan must somehow be playing a double game right? :disagree:

I like how the rules that apply to Pakistan change when they apply to other countries.
 
Last edited:
.
Actually no...

Read my last post again...or nvm I'll just copy it here again
"The Taliban emerged in 1994 as one of the prominent factions in the Afghan Civil War and largely consisted of students (talib) from the Pashtun areas of eastern and southern Afghanistan who had been educated in traditional Islamic schools, and fought during the Soviet–Afghan War."

Did u think Mullah Omar just snapped his fingers and spawned armed/trained warriors out of thin air to fight off the rest of the Mujahideen factions?

No...they were the same militants that comprised the Mujahideen...just bcuz the Mujahideen fragmented/shuffled/rebranded doesn't make them a new militia that was created out of thin air
- Fragmented: infighting/power struggle began among the various factions comprising the Mujahideen
- Shuffled: Various militants and factions started to band together under Mullah Omar especially towards the end when his faction was getting an upper hand over others
- Rebranded: they called themselves the Taliban

In that same article I cited earlier, it also mentioned...

"The British Professor Carole Hillenbrand concluded that the Taliban have arisen from those US-Saudi-Pakistan-supported mujahideen"

...anyone well versed in history and this Mujahideen/Cold War saga would come to that same conclusion

U r confusing the Taliban's creation with Taliban's support. US did not support the Taliban(the rebranded entity post Soviet exit from Afghanistan)...but US did create them.

As for Pakistan supporting the Taliban as I mentioned before...yes Pakistan did. However initially Pakistan was in favor of a united Mujahideen government in Afghanistan and Pakistan played a role in setting it up. It was the Mujahideen themselves who couldn't keep it together and a civil war started...accordingly Pakistan realigned with the faction that seemed likely to win(Taliban) in order to have peaceful relations with whoever it is that comes to power.

Now then this tangent is settled...let's get back to the main topic I was initially discussing.
Which was "where is the proof that Pakistan is playing a double game?" There is proof of Pakistan fighting the Taliban but there is no solid evidence of Pakistan playing a "double game"...just some rants of ppl every now and then

1) As proof u brought up Benazir's statements...it was established that she wasn't in power nor did she have any solid info for her statements to hold any weight.
2) U brought up Pakistanis differentiating between the Taliban...as if that somehow implies a double game...
To this I countered that US officially differentiates between the Taliban and yet they are not accused of a double game
3) U brought up Pakistan's creation and support of Taliban as proof of Pakistan's double game
To this I countered that US also created/supported the Mujahideen(where Taliban emerged from) and again when US turns around and fights them that's fine...but somehow it is inconceivable that Pakistan can turn around and fight the militants it created/supported...there's just no way, Pakistan must somehow be playing a double game right? :disagree:

I like how the rules that apply to Pakistan change when they apply to other countries.

another thing that is overlooked appropriately is, the Taliban were invited to smallville in 97/98 for discussion over some gas pipeline, which got awarded to a non smallville outfit. forward to 2k11 and here we are in 2k18.
 
.
Now, now Gangadeshi, for some unknown reason it was somehow noble of Gangadesh to back it's Ganga brethren the "Mukhti Bani" in perpetrating horrific acts of violence yet when Pakistan backs it fellow Indus brethren the "Kashmiris" we are somehow culpable and enablers of terrorism, I state without any reservation that when it comes down to morality Gangadeshis are the biggest hypocrites the good Lord ever created.Kudos Ganga-dweller

Shameful and rich to talk of Bangladesh when an elected Leader was not allowed to become the prime minister for racist and degenerate reasons. When elections are a farce and thousands of Bangladeshi women are raped, the impact of that with or without India was independent Bangladesh.
 
.
Shameful and rich to talk of Bangladesh when an elected Leader was not allowed to become the prime minister for racist and degenerate reasons. When elections are a farce and thousands of Bangladeshi women are raped, the impact of that with or without India was independent Bangladesh.
That is not the point, you folks interfered in what was recognized internationally and by the UN as Pakistan whereas Kashmir is internationally considered as disputed territory yet you have the audacity to condemn us for offering even moral support (and as if Gangadeshis are not raping women and committing human rights abuses on our Kashmiri brethren),,,,hypocrisy at it's cringiest.
 
.
Well, You may have your own definition of Terror but the UN has no internationally agreed definition of terrorism and the reason is that some organizations (OIC, Arab League etc.) define terrorism to exclude "armed struggle for liberation" and "self-determination". The member countries (of these organisations) won't accept any definition of terrorism which may declare Palestinian Freedom Fighters as Terrorists. This Dead Lock continues to this day and the UN has not adopted the convention on international terrorism.

So, until and unless the UN "defines" terrorism to include "armed struggle for liberation" and "self-determination", the Kashmiri Freedom Fighters cannot be declared Terrorists .....

As far as International Law is concerned, the Statute of the International Court of Justice does recognize the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations as a valid source of International Law. This category may also include the work of organizations and private institutions. Opinions expressed by experts carry significant weight in International Law.


And here is what some experts on International Law have to say regarding the Kashmiri Freedom Fighters:


(The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) is an international human rights non-governmental organization based in Geneva. The Commission itself is a standing group of 60 eminent jurists(including senior judges, attorneys and academics) dedicated to ensuring respect for international human rights standards through the law. Commissioners are known for their experience, knowledge and fundamental commitment to human rights.)


ICJ sent a fact finding mission to Kashmir in 1995. The final report published not only challenged the accession of Kashmir to India, it went on to say "If as the ICJ mission has concluded , the people of Kashmir have a right for self determination, it follows that their insurgency is legitimate " ... (p.84-98)

https://www.icj.org/category/publications/reports/page/36/

I have no new definition of terror. UN you quote has declared Hafiz Sayeed as a terrorist. I rest my case.

That is not the point, you folks interfered in what was recognized internationally and by the UN as Pakistan whereas Kashmir is internationally considered as disputed territory yet you have the audacity to condemn us for offering even moral support (and as if Gangadeshis are not raping women and committing human rights abuses on our Kashmiri brethren),,,,hypocrisy at it's cringiest.

When you say you interfered... check you facts. After the election in Pak, why was there an influx of over a million refugees from East Pak to India? The minute this happened, we were party to the fallout. End of.
 
.
Shameful and rich to talk of Bangladesh when an elected Leader was not allowed to become the prime minister for racist and degenerate reasons. When elections are a farce and thousands of Bangladeshi women are raped, the impact of that with or without India was independent Bangladesh.

Are you counting the hindus?
 
.
When you say you interfered... check you facts. After the election in Pak, why was there an influx of over a million refugees from East Pak to India? The minute this happened, we were party to the fallout. End of.
As if refugees have not been crossing LOC ever since 48 , besides you were involved well before the so-called refugee issue "cough" "cough" Agartala Conspiracy Case!
 
. .
As if refugees have not been crossing LOC ever since 48 , besides you were involved well before the so-called refugee issue "cough" "cough" Agartala Conspiracy Case!

Every country that has an intelligence agency will keep tabs on neighbours. That is not what happened in 1971. India did not have R&AW till Pak attacked in 1965. There is a difference between immigration for better opportunities vs
Migration due to persecution and programs.

The first one

Hindus as not humans

And you are an elite member with bigoted rascist views. Serves you well. I am ignoring you as I can't stoop so low.
 
.
I have no new definition of terror. UN you quote has declared Hafiz Sayeed as a terrorist. I rest my case.

Hafiz Saeed was designated a terrorist by UN in Dec 2008 on Indian request following Mumbai Terror Attacks when India accused Hafiz Saeed of being the mastermind behind those attacks. The UN Resolution (i.e 1822) declared Hafiz Saeed a terrorist for being associated with Al Qaeda and LeT.

Nothing to do with Kashmir Freedom Struggle.
Try Again
 
.
Hafiz Saeed was designated a terrorist by UN in Dec 2008 on Indian request following Mumbai Terror Attacks when India accused Hafiz Saeed of being the mastermind behind those attacks. The UN Resolution (i.e 1822) declared Hafiz Saeed a terrorist for being associated with Al Qaeda and LeT.

Nothing to do with Kashmir Freedom Struggle.
Try Again

Read LeT's stated goals. It's for you to try again. Also he is not just associated. He is THE front.
 
.
Read LeT's stated goals. It's for you to try again.

Let me try to educate you my friend. Kashmir's indigenous freedom movement has not been (an cannot be) declared a terrorist movement by the UN .. That whether or not Pakistan (or any other country for that matter) has any right to materially support Kahmiri Freedom fighters is a different question. So whatever LeT's stated goals are is irrelevant here .... Do you get it now ?
 
.
Let me try to educate you my friend. Kashmir's indigenous freedom movement has not been (an cannot be) declared a terrorist movement by the UN .. That whether or not Pakistan (or any other country for that matter) has any right to materially support Kahmiri Freedom fighters is a different question. So whatever LeT's stated goals are is irrelevant here .... Do you get it now ?
Chickened out? By sounding like you know it all, your inability to defend your own post let's you down. Try again my friend. I am sure you learnt a thing or two today.
 
.
Chickened out? By sounding like you know it all, your inability to defend your own post let's you down. Try again my friend. I am sure you learnt a thing or two today.

Whatever helps you sleep at night :lol:
Have a nice day
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom