Taliban chief Akhtar Mansoor dead, Taliban deny.

[war&peace]

Do you think Mansoor's death is going to affect Afghan taliban? It won't, he'll be replaced, and the movement will just get more dangerous.

Mansoor was a weak leader as compared to Mullah Omar and thus upon latter's death...Talibans got divided in factions as apparently Mullah Omar had not declared his successor in good time... Of course he will be replaced but it has derailed the peace process...idk...how knowledgeable the agencies are about his successor and how much of influence they will have on him to bring him to the table...or how much will he be willing to do so especially knowing the fact that whenever they accepted a seat....the game is over for them.

 

[QK007]

Mullah Mansoor was a hard headed Kandahari Pashtoon. Pakistan faced difficulties dealing with him, he was not ready for peace negotiations. According to senior Taliban governors he was a brutal leader, believed in use of force to mute the rest of members.

 

[Serpentine]

The difference is that Pakistan did talk to them, and only took military action AFTER the TTP broke the agreement. With the Afghan taliban, talks haven't even begun, due to Afghanistan sabotaging, or going back on them constantly.

Besides, there is a stark difference between the two, and the Afghan taliban have often denied their affiliation with the TTP.

Don't take this to mean that I'm against military action against the Afghan taliban, but like the ttp, talks should be had first.

It's disgusting how you justify and whitewash the ugly face of Afghan Taliban and their actions, and suddenly go on defensive mode trying to explain Pakistan's war against TTP who are the same shit, with a different name. The sad thing is, Pakistani leaders did the same in 80s and 90s and Pakistan is paying for it till this very moment.

 

[Imran Khan]

Mullah Mansoor was a hard headed Kandahari Pashtoon. Pakistan faced difficulties dealing with him, he was not ready for peace negotiations. According to senior Taliban governors he was a brutal leader, believed in use of force to mute the rest of members.

while reality is he was our dog and ISI again failed to protect his man
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...our-is-businessman-protected-by-Pakistan.html

 

[That Guy]

It's disgusting how you justify and whitewash the ugly face of Afghan Taliban and their actions, and suddenly go on defensive mode trying to explain Pakistan's war against TTP who are the same shit, with a different name. The sad thing is, Pakistani leaders did the same in 80s and 90s and Pakistan is paying for it till this very moment.

When did I justify the taliban or their actions? Nonsense.

I said that talks should be had, just like they were had with the ttp. Action should only be taken if talks fail, or if the militants break their side of the agreement, just like the ttp did. I justified nothing, nor did I whitewash anything. Next time, please don't accuse me of something, unless you can actually point it out.

The 80s and 90s were a different era, with different circumstances, the comparison is too far fetched to even make.

As for your disgust, your judgement is both unwarranted and pointless. I'm merely stating what I believe to be the situation and what the best course of action is, in terms of a solution, not what I believe should and shouldn't happen in a moral context.

If I had it my way, the Afghan taliban would either do what Pakistan says, or be hung from lamp posts.

 

[Sparkle229]

You are not taking money to kill TTP but ones who are engaging US and Afghan forces in Afghanistan and have support of ISI and other Pakistani groups like haqani's. You should appreciate America that they are killing TTP leadership in Pakistan too instead of finding faults.You did not answer why all terrorists are found in Pakistan only ?

Yeah all the terrorists are found in Pakistan and afghan Taliban are also in Pakistan and daesh is also in Pakistan every dog of hell is in Pakistan and that is due to shitty policies of America so the root of the problem is America since they cannot take revenge on America they target because we are it's allies

 

[Zarvan]

I have serious doubts this Guy is Mullah Mansoor

 

[JamD]

I have serious doubts this Guy is Mullah Mansoor

That looks like Quaid-e-Azam International Airport in the background of the first picture.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Agreed that the only good taliban is a crispy one.

It is really a catch22 situation. Here are Pakistan's options:
A- Pakistan starts to go against every faction operating inside Afghanistan. Then the world community loses all hope of bringing the taliban to the negotiating table. The trouble with this option is this. The ANA is in no position to fight the taliban like the Pakistan Army did in Zarb-e-Azb. We negotiated from a position of weakness, they regrouped and fought back harder. We pummeled them because we could. Pakistan does not have faith in the ANA's ability to pummel the Afghan Taliban to the negotiating table. Which is why Pakistan is sticking to B.
B- Pakistan tries to keep some leverage on the Taliban to try to keep pushing them towards the negotiating table. Of course this is a dirty game. But look at option A. Going with option A is saying we have faith in the ANA to defeat the Afghan Taliban.
C- Pakistan seals and mines the border, pushes everyone out, loses all leverage with the Taliban and lets Afghanistan fight it own battle. Pakistan loses influence, sure, but are we in any doubt what happens in Afghanistan? Does the ANA prevail? Doubt it. And can you really "seal" such a long and porous border. Also apparently Afghanistan has an issue with sealing the border in whatever capacity as evident from the recent tensions at Torkham.

My 2 cents.

An essential factor to consider is that the ANA has reached nowhere near the maturity and battle-ready condition of the Pakistan Army.

Another essential factor to consider is that with the cooperation of the Afghans, your plan A would have been possible. It was a question of a huge trust deficit; if the Afghans could have visualised a stiffening of the spine of the ANA by the Pakistan Army, it might have a winning script. They can't visualise that, because Pakistan has made it so clear, not in words but through actions, that they are active in support of the Afghan Taliban. They can't take seriously a peace attempt with a nation that keeps blowing up their citizens through proxy jehadis.

The onus is on afghanistan not to back stab . Like I said PK will be moving ahead with or without afghanistan . Your country has the honour of being one of the two countries not to recognize PK at the time of its independence. I regularly watch your media these days . They really spout venom against PK all the time . Can you imagine what will become of Afghanistan if PK closes torkham , sends back 3 million refugees , stops its annual $ 500 investment in afghanistan , scholorships to afghan students and countless of favours done by us ?. Even If we don't do anything we wont be at any loss you guys will be.

Afghanistan needs PK , It's not vice versa . .

Sadly, and I mean sadly, replacing Pakistan and its contribution to Afghanistan is quite an achievable task - to put it mildly. Replacing Pakistan's penchant to interfere in Afghanistan is a thousand times more difficult.

Talibans are in many shapes for example in india they are called RSS and Bajrang Dall ...And their leader happens to be PM of india ... Wow ..

That is a silly statement. I say this as an opponent of Modi and all that he stands for. Unlike the Taliban, he is a politician, not a gun-wielding terrorist. Unlike the Taliban, he has no private army capable of making a city bleed; the capabilities of his organisation more or less consist of being able to riot and kill people during the riots, not rocket a city or drop mortar shells on it. His opponents can oppose him without getting a bullet through their guts. He is judged almost on a daily basis; at least on the basis of every by-election.

Such over-the-top airy-fairy assertions lower the quality of a discussion immediately. Kindly refrain, in the interests of all concerned.

 

[rashid.sarwar]

May be post earlier but......

 

[Joe Shearer]

Afghan Taliban are an ethnic pushtun group, if they were a "terrorist organisation" then how come the Americans themselves were/are willing to have talks with them?.

Wiping them out would be like wiping out African Americans from the United States.

Haven't you just answered your own question? And did you think that nobody would notice that you didn't answer the original question?

From that incident we can easily say that America should never to trusted

Approximately 62 years too late.

 

[Spectre]

Haven't you just answered your own question? And did you think that nobody would notice that you didn't answer the original question?

I am pretty confused about what is Taliban exactly

- Are they mercenary group of interested parties, misguiding local Paashtun ethnicity who feel short changed by Northern Alliance. There only interest is in creating fiefdoms for themselves so that they can rule without repercussions
- Are they the true representative of Pashtun People in Afghanistan and their actions show democratic angst of Pashtuns and they are likely to settle down as a mature once handed power
- Do they even have nationalist tendencies in their current form or they are likely splinter into various factions.

It is pretty tough to talk peace with a group when they are such a nebulous entity and serious concerns exists regarding whether they possess they real support of people or that support is achieved through terror.
-

 

[QK007]

while reality is he was our dog and ISI again failed to protect his man

I totally agree with you on that.... war always needs such brutal men

 

[Sparkle229]

They also denied the death of mullah Omar and look how that turns out to be.

 

[Hyperion]

Final nail in the coffin of Pakistan-America bhai bhai. Let the hostilities and killing begin!