What's new

Taliban dissolves ‘unnecessary’ election commissions

The country will have an Amir something similar to China's meritocracy selection which selecting the most capable leader by the jury and honestly this type of system is much better than the one in Pakistan which is allover the place.. You have incompetent fools like Bilawal active in Pakistani politics that is just crazy
sorry to say but i think you have no idea how states/ intelligence agencies works . my dear until now millions of dollars will be transfered to opposation and sooner anti taliban forces will re group and start a war against taliban . taliban have 17big groups inside them and other party will try to break some groups too . and there are 100s of armed groups in afghanistan . i am 10000% sure weapons and regrouping must be under way in tajikistan and uzbikistan right now . CIA / RAW / MOSSAD /MI-6 and iranians will be busy to start new chapter as pakistanis / arabs /Iranians/chines were doing in 2002 . let me told you taliban have 230mn$ in 2003 and 1bn$ in 2007 .
 
.
The country will have an Amir something similar to China's meritocracy selection which selecting the most capable leader by the jury and honestly this type of system is much better than the one in Pakistan which is allover the place.. You have incompetent fools like Bilawal active in Pakistani politics that is just crazy

I know some individuals cite the Chinese system as a way to govern Pakistan, they would like to see their leader like Chairman Mao or Xi, 10-year rule etc.

Pakistan was founded as a democracy, its constituent states were joined on the basis that they would have a constitutional democracy as Jinnah envisioned, in which they had both a great degree of provincial autonomy (unlike a Chinese style centralised system), and also fair representation. We denied this via 1954 Doctrine of Necessity, by tin pot dictators in the 1950s, then generals and their spawn. All it earned us was separatist movements from Bengal to Balochistan and it ended with the former seceding from Pakistan.

One party rule, one dictator rule, disenfranchisement of political opponents, too much centralisation, one unit nation etc etc.
These ideas have NEVER worked in Pakistan.

In fact, they are the reason why today your democracy suffers from Bhutto and Sharif dynasties.
sorry to say but i think you have no idea how states/ intelligence agencies works . my dear until now millions of dollars will be transfered to opposation and sooner anti taliban forces will re group and start a war against taliban . taliban have 17big groups inside them and other party will try to break some groups too . and there are 100s of armed groups in afghanistan . i am 10000% sure weapons and regrouping must be under way in tajikistan and uzbikistan right now . CIA / RAW / MOSSAD /MI-6 and iranians will be busy to start new chapter as pakistanis / arabs /Iranians/chines were doing in 2002 . let me told you taliban have 230mn$ in 2003 and 1bn$ in 2007 .

Your perception is accurate. In fact, we can say that the Taliban already have a war on going with the remnants of the previous regime, and also with ISKP. The taliban face multiple dilemmas:

If they go full 1990s style repression, they will keep their own groups happy, but the int'l community will be angered and they will face foreign backed efforts by the likes of the CIA against them. If they go down this route, they will also deny the supporters of the previous regime fair representation. The previous regime did this exact same thing to the Taliban, they shut them out of power, so the Taliban then waged a successful insurgency. If they don't share power now, the Taliban will also face an insurgency. they will also face no reignition of statehood, aid will stop, Doha visits will stop, and people will literally starve. Pakistan will see refugees arriving out of destitution.

However, if they go too liberal and too soft, their own hardcore elements will turn against them. Some will join ISKP. And if the Taliban gain IEA statehood recognition by the likes of the USA, Pakistan and Saudi, even if aid flows in. ISKP and the extreme taliban types will begin to fight them.

This is exactly the dilemma they face with the TTP. We tell them, if you want our help, get rid of the scum. But if they fight the TTP, the TTP will simply join ISKP and begin to fight the IEA too.

Etc.
 
Last edited:
.
I know some individuals cite the Chinese system as a way to govern Pakistan, they would like to see their leader like Chairman Mao or Xi, 10-year rule etc.

Pakistan was founded as a democracy, its constituent states were joined on the basis that they would have a constitutional democracy as Jinnah envisioned, in which they had both a great degree of provincial autonomy (unlike a Chinese style centralised system), and also fair representation. We denied this via 1954 Doctrine of Necessity, by tin pot dictators in the 1950s, then generals and their spawn. All it earned us was separatist movements from Bengal to Balochistan and it ended with the former seceding from Pakistan.

One party rule, one dictator rule, disenfranchisement of political opponents, too much centralisation, one unit nation etc etc.
These ideas have NEVER worked in Pakistan.

In fact, they are the reason why today your democracy suffers from Bhutto and Sharif dynasties.


Your perception is accurate. In fact, we can say that the Taliban already have a war on going with the remnants of the previous regime, and also with ISKP. The taliban face multiple dilemmas:

If they go full 1990s style repression, they will keep their own groups happy, but the int'l community will be angered and they will face foreign backed efforts by the likes of the CIA against them. If they go down this route, they will also deny the supporters of the previous regime fair representation. The previous regime did this exact same thing to the Taliban, they shut them out of power, so the Taliban then waged a successful insurgency. If they don't share power now, the Taliban will also face an insurgency. they will also face no reignition of statehood, aid will stop, Doha visits will stop, and people will literally starve. Pakistan will see refugees arriving out of destitution.

However, if they go too liberal and too soft, their own hardcore elements will turn against them. Some will join ISKP. And if the Taliban gain IEA statehood recognition by the likes of the USA, Pakistan and Saudi, even if aid flows in. ISKP and the extreme taliban types will begin to fight them.

This is exactly the dilemma they face with the TTP. We tell them, if you want our help, get rid of the scum. But if they fight the TTP, the TTP will simply join ISKP and begin to fight the IEA too.

Etc.

ISKP is irrelevant just as much as BLAAF is in Pakistan besides they ain't facing more low intensity progrom insurgency then Pakistan. The previous government elements is eradicated completely.

They have a little bit more stability then Pakistan today. Facing CIA? I don't think anyone is anymore dumb enough to waste 20-trillion USD on that black hole hence that part is history that will never re-occur again just like how Vietnam never re-occured again twice which was in itself major stragetic mistake by the US which lead to the rise of China and other powers.. Mistakes don't repeat itself especially one that is that big the US almost collapsed economically which is the main reason for the withdrawal.. Things don't go circle especially when they were a big blunder. But there are other important focus in today's world and the politics have changed towards a multi-polar world
 
.
ISKP is irrelevant just as much as BLAAF is in Pakistan besides they ain't facing more low intensity progrom insurgency then Pakistan. The previous government elements is eradicated.

Sure, but tell that to the IEA that has to face them. The point I was making is that the Taliban will find it hard to balance the power dynamics in Afghanistan if they are inflexible and deny representation.

Afghanistan is a diverse country with many factions in it, either all of them run it together, or they fight each other forever. When the US and their Afghan stooges made the stupid mistake of denying the Taliban and their supporters representation, shutting them out of the Bonn Agreement in 2001, Loya Jirga in 2002, and then Afghan elections in 2004. It made it so that their natural opposition (the taliban and their supporters), could not exercise power by vote or system, so then the Taliban waged a successful insurgency. If the Taliban make the same mistake today, and run the country with no space for other factions, they will find themselves at war constantly.

They have a bit little bit more stability then Pakistan today. Facing CIA? I don't think anyone is anymore dumb enough to waste 20-trillion USD on that black hole hence that part is history that will never require which was in itself major stragetic mistake by the US which lead to the rise of China and other powers

Part in bold is 110% wrong. I can't list enough reasons as to why the opposite is the case.

The IEA has been in power less than a year, currently no country on earth recognises them as legitimate. They are effectively sanctioned, even aid agencies have trouble reaching them, their USD 9bn in FX reserves are tied up at the Fed. They are trying their best to work on recognition, getting aid, getting their cash, stabilise their currency, and draft a constitution. And you're here telling me that they're more stable than Pakistan? Absurd.

I could write an essay explaining this, but what's the point? It's too obvious to require explanation.
 
.
The country will have an Amir something similar to China's meritocracy selection which is selecting the most capable leader by the jury and honestly this type of system is much better than the one in Pakistan which is allover the place.. You have incompetent folks like Bilawal active in Pakistani politics that is just crazy
aseefa-bhutto-zardari-bilawal-bhutto-zardari-and-bakhtawar-bhutto-picture-id96093807
political science says something else . if power center became one person or group pf persons its extremely dangerous for country . we have dozens of examples when such people have destroyed the country to core .

niploian / hitler/ saddam/qaddafi /gorbachev /asad/kim family/stalin are few examples . while if power is divided in nation its became too soft and its almost impossible to break it apart .
 
.
Sure, but tell that to the IEA that has to face them. The point I was making is that the Taliban will find it hard to balance the power dynamics in Afghanistan if they are inflexible and deny representation.

Afghanistan is a diverse country with many factions in it, either all of them run it together, or they fight each other forever. When the US and their Afghan stooges made the stupid mistake of denying the Taliban and their supporters representation, shutting them out of the Bonn Agreement in 2001, Loya Jirga in 2002, and then Afghan elections in 2004. It made it so that their natural opposition (the taliban and their supporters), could not exercise power by vote or system, so then the Taliban waged a successful insurgency. If the Taliban make the same mistake today, and run the country with no space for other factions, they will find themselves at war constantly.



Part in bold is 110% wrong. I can't list enough reasons as to why the opposite is the case.

The IEA has been in power less than a year, currently no country on earth recognises them as legitimate. They are effectively sanctioned, even aid agencies have trouble reaching them, their USD 9bn in FX reserves are tied up at the Fed. They are trying their best to work on recognition, getting aid, getting their cash, stabilise their currency, and draft a constitution. And you're here telling me that they're more stable than Pakistan? Absurd.

I could write an essay explaining this, but what's the point? It's too obvious to require explanation.

You are now circling around without any substance besides you changed from one angle to another.. I stand firm on what I said about them being more stabile at this point as it stands.

Besides Afghanistan is whole today not disverse nobody has the stomach for anything else especially after Panjshir it worked phenonomenally as the end capital of strife in that country and the last capture. Because it served as an example in the way they reacted and the forceful response shouts down any ideas of such events occuring in the country automatically and put the country into stability meaning IEA will rule smoothly. Sometimes you gotta sacrifice one in a great manner in order for everyone to take heed which is high psychological game Besides all the garbage are just vacating the country which plays right into their advantage.

As far as money goes ppl keep talking about 9billion as if it is 1trillion but they got more then these 9b just in gifts from around the world and supporters hence it is propagated more than it really should have been
 
.
as much as taliban will fail in nation building economy jobs createn ang good governence they will impose more and more bans and strict rules so they can cover the mess .

They will fail no worse than the current Pakistani politicians...
 
. .
Till date, there is not a single news, where Taliban have been able to do something good for the people of Afghanistan. They don't seem to be in a mood to rule, for long.

Just because the media is against them, doesnt mean they have nkt done single good thing. This is how the international propaganda works and affects smart ppl like u too.
Having contacts with people who regularly visit Afghanistan, i can tell u ppl like them, more so than the previous regime. They are not corrupt and have reduced taxes. Their ministers and officials have voluntarily reduced their pays to 1/10th of previous govt officials but ofcourse ull never hear this in the news.
 
.
political science says something else . if power center became one person or group pf persons its extremely dangerous for country . we have dozens of examples when such people have destroyed the country to core .

niploian / hitler/ saddam/qaddafi /gorbachev /asad/kim family/stalin are few examples . while if power is divided in nation its became too soft and its almost impossible to break it apart .

Agree, and I'm tired of these scum elites telling ordinary Pakistani people that they're too stupid to elect their own leaders.
Every self-serving leader has said things like this, here are some gems from Pakistan's finest leaders:

Iskander Mirza on dictatorship:
"more suited to the genius of the Pakistan nation", as he believed democracy was unsuited to Pakistan "with its 15% literacy rate"

Ayub Khan saying Pakistani people are too jahil to deserve democracy:
"He introduced various measures to supposedly cleanse the system of corrupt politicians, and was of the opinion that parliamentary democracy would not suit Pakistan because of its high level of illiteracy. Hence what would work in Pakistan according to him was a limited form of democracy, which came to be known as Basic Democracy."

Zia:
"In announcing the coup, Zia promised "free and fair elections" within 90 days, but these were repeatedly postponed on the excuse of accountability and it was not until 1985 that ("party-less") general elections were held."

"He frequently stated that "western style democracy was not suited to the needs of Pakistan.".
 
. . .
yes thats why 4 millions afghans are here and rest of them want to come here sir .

Pakistan is a gateway to other places for those afghans that can get to the West. Not their dreamland.

Even most Pakistani seek visas to Amreeka and Ingaland ....
 
.
Pakistan is a gateway to other places for those afghans that can get to the West. Not their dreamland.

Even most Pakistani seek visas to Amreeka and Ingaland ....
please visit afghan camps . and ask them why are they here . only 1% go to west rest are here since ages now .
 
. .

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom