What's new

Taliban Want to Annex Parts of Pakistan to Afghanistan

AgNoStiC MuSliM

ADVISORS
Joined
Jul 11, 2007
Messages
25,259
Reaction score
87
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
Pakistan's brutal beneficiaries betray their refuge

Globe survey finds Taliban have only harsh words for nation that allegedly supports them, claiming large parts of it belong to them

GRAEME SMITH

gsmith@globeandmail.com

March 26, 2008

KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN -- Despite a long history of using Pakistan as a safe haven, Taliban on the front lines of the insurgency say they have no loyalty to their neighbouring country.

A survey of 42 insurgents in Kandahar found most were critical about Pakistan, where they are reported to have headquarters and supply lines, and most were critical of Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, often using the harshest language to describe him.

Some insurgents claimed they want to fight for the seizure of vast swaths of Pakistan's territory in the name of expanding Afghanistan to include the major cities of Quetta and Peshawar. Every fighter asked said those two cities belong inside Afghanistan, and all of them rejected the existing border as a legitimate boundary between the countries.

The Globe and Mail's modest sample of Taliban opinion may only reflect an effort by the insurgents to hide their sources of support in Pakistan, analysts say, or it may point to something more troubling: the growing indications that parts of the insurgency are no longer controlled by anybody.

"If they are supported by ISI [Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency], why are they attacking Pakistan?" said Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, the former Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, after reviewing The Globe's raw video footage. "Why would the ISI want these kinds of activities in Pakistan? It's out of control. Nobody is able to control it."

"This is Afghan government propaganda, about the Pakistan government controlling the Taliban."

Few historians dispute that Pakistan's intelligence services played a decisive role in establishing the Taliban movement in 1994, and Islamabad appeared to retain a strong influence over the regime that seized Kabul two years later.

President Musharraf formally cut ties with the Taliban in 2001, but in recent years a growing number of observers have accused Pakistan's agents, or former agents, of continuing their assistance for the radical movement.

"With the collaboration of elements within one of Pakistan's ... intelligence services, the ISI, the Pashtun borderlands have become a safe haven for the Taliban," write Thomas Johnson and Chris Mason, of the Naval Postgraduate School in California, in a coming issue of the journal International Security.

The Afghan government strongly endorses that view, often helping journalists arrange interviews with captured insurgents who tell stories of training centres in Pakistan.

During one such interview session last year at the Kandahar Governor's Palace, an Afghan intelligence official paraded out a group of prisoners who described themselves as Pakistanis persuaded to wage jihad against foreign troops in Afghanistan after attending madrassas in Pakistan. They gave details of an informal training camp in Chaman, Pakistan, that suggested the insurgents were making little effort to hide their activities from local authorities.

If the Taliban are creatures of Pakistan, however, The Globe and Mail's survey suggests they are not a particularly obedient creation.

Some parts of the Taliban in particular, such as the recently created Pakistani Taliban group led by Baitullah Mehsud, have proven themselves more of a threat within Pakistan than anywhere else.

"The Islamist extremist Frankenstein is no longer confined to the whims of political power games," wrote Irm Haleem, a South Asian expert who teaches at New York's Seton Hall University, in an article this month that devoted itself to the comparison between the Taliban and Mary Shelley's mythical creature.

Every insurgent asked by The Globe researcher said huge parts of Pakistan belong to Afghanistan, but they offered varying ideas about how much territory should be claimed and how it is historically justified.

One fighter said that only half of Pakistan's provinces, Sindh and Punjab, rightfully belong in the country.

"Those areas of Pakistan were small," the fighter said. "In the time of Zahir Shah or someone else, then they made this line [the new border]." Another gave a similar explanation for the loss of Quetta and Peshawar: "The King Zahir Shah sold them, but when Mullah Omar was in Kandahar, he saw the contracts and the contracts were expired."

In fact, the Durand Line agreement established the southeastern border of Afghanistan in 1893, long before the reign of King Zahir Shah, which lasted from 1933 to 1973. Pakistan and Afghanistan still formally disagree about whether the agreement has expired.

Some of the Taliban seemed to be appropriating the nationalistic cause of reclaiming the Durand territory as part of the insurgency's agenda.

"They [Quetta and Peshawar] absolutely belong to Afghanistan, and if we become successful in our war we will take it back from Pakistan, because it is a part of our holy Afghanistan," one insurgent said.

"Unfortunately, at the moment, Afghanistan is in a big pressure: Non-Muslims are here," another fighter added. "But when the non-Muslims leave Afghanistan, then it [the Durand territory] can never be a part of Pakistan. We will erase the Durand line."

Others blamed the government of President Hamid Karzai for failing to raise the issue with Islamabad, implying that Mr. Karzai cannot take action because he is controlled by foreign powers.

One fighter, asked why Pakistan retains control of the territory, said, "Because there is no Islamic government, all of them are non-Muslims, and the government of Pakistan is also a non-Islamic government, and that's why."

"The British handed it over to them," another said. "Where is the government? It belongs to the Americans now."

"So the Americans don't want it to be a part of Afghanistan?" he was asked. "He [Mr. Musharraf] is also a son of the Americans, and Karzai is as well. So if he [President George W. Bush] takes it from one son and gives it to another, what does he gain here?"

Despite their talk about Pakistan's unfair seizure of the Pashtun lands, the Taliban were strongly reluctant to accept the idea of "Pashtunistan" as a separate country, a concept raised by some ethnic nationalists in the border region. Only four respondents said they favour the creation of a new country for Pashtuns.

These front-line fighters likely don't realize the close relationship between Pakistan's government and the insurgents, said one Western expert in Kandahar.

"How many idealists have been manipulated by Machiavellian masters who kept themselves hidden in world history?" the observer said. "They almost certainly are not aware of the Pakistan government's involvement in their movement."

A former Afghan intelligence officer, whose experience in Kandahar spans three decades, agreed that the Taliban are unaware of their masters.

"The ISI co-ordinates Taliban activities, for sure," the retired officer said. "But the ISI has a few members who are leading the Taliban and the Taliban don't always understand the Pakistan role behind them. If the Taliban were aware they are puppets, they would stop fighting."

During a long afternoon of discussion last year in Kandahar, a Taliban sympathizer chuckled at the idea of the insurgents as unwitting pawns.

"The Pakistanis have two faces," said the full-bearded man, with an ample belly and a quick laugh. "They're friends with Talibs and Americans at the same time. They are betrayers of Islam."

He continued: "Pakistan gets money from Americans and uses many tricks against the Taliban. They give the Taliban money, training and places to stay. On the other side, they arrest them and sell them. ... The small Taliban don't understand this."

globeandmail.com: Pakistan's brutal beneficiaries betray their refuge

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bloody wonderful.

Where are the Taliban supporters on this one?

That said, I doubt the Taliban would ever be satisfied with just Baluchistan and NWFP - their ideology demands a "worldwide Khilafat", and "Ummah". More reason than any for NATO to stay and finish the job I say.

On the other hand, with this dynamic within the Taliban, what of the desire to "negotiate" with them now by NATO?

"Artificial state", break up of Pakistan and what not ...What of the "new map of the Mid East"?
 
This report does put the repeated statements by Pakistani government officials, civilian and military security forces, of "foreign support and intervention" in favor of these elements, in a new light.

Sort of hard to really trust anyone at this point, and I would argue an excellent time for a Pashtun nationalist party, that is Secular and committed to exterminating terrorism and extremism, to be in charge.

An excellent time for a "popular" democratically elected government to be in full control of the process, as much as we may hate the leadership of the parties in charge.
 
these creatures are good for nothing. pakistan should have never helped these afghanis.... in aid.. and refugees back in 80s and still today!
 
i, for one, doubt the contents of this article. there is a difference between the groups in afghanistan and the recently created one in pakistan, led by Mehsud.

there is also al qaeda, consisting mainly of uzbeks, arabs, egyptians who unfortunately are residing in our territory and claim it to be theirs. we know recently mullah omar along with a few other hardliners broke off ties with mehsud. they don't want to have anything to do with pakistan.

I doubt these groups in pakistan haven't been infiltrated by foreign agents. ever since musharraf went against certain nations' interest, mehsud organized the pak taliban. we know this stuff started around 2006, after bughti was killed. you tell me, if there's nothing "fishy" going on here.

besides that, afghan taliban don't even recognize afghanistan and definitely don't consider it an islamic state. that comment is certainly laughable. however, i don't deny that they have claims on NWFP and FATA.

let's also remember that karzai has a habit of relating pakistan to every problem afghans have. he doesn't miss out on any chance he gets to show his hate for pakistan(hint: karzai's father was killed in pakistan). besides that, who could forget the 4 indian consulates and 13 information centers in afghanistan. what do you think they're there for?
BBC NEWS | South Asia | Anti-Pakistan protest in Kabul

my hope is that we make peace deals with some of these groups. after all, we violated some of the agreements with tribal areas made by Jinnah. we are not supposed to interfere with their issues. we know that the us has forced us to the WoT and has given attractive aid, on the other hand we fought our own people for it. i ask the readers here to discuss their views, should pakistan have gone ahead with the offensive in the tribal areas under pressure from us?
 
of course we can re-ignite the the fire in kashmir again like what pakistan is doing now. this time around, i hear khalistan is going into circulation. let's not forget assam through bangladesh and the rest of the double-digit resistance movements in india.

we wouldn't be facing pressure from india like we are today, if musharraf would stop showing off and supporting world peace by leaving kashmir. he can claim all the achievements he has made so far which are certainly to be noted, yet the truth is it came at the cost of our peace and lives.

APHC felicitates people on Pakistan day | 4 troops killed, 1 youth martyred in IHK
Srinagar, March 23 (KMS): The All Parties Hurriyet Conference felicitating the Government and people of Pakistan on the Pakistan Day, today, has expressed confidence that the on going developments in the country will usher it in a new era of peace and stability.

The APHC spokesman in a statement in Srinagar pointed out that the people of Kashmir appreciate Pakistan’s unswerving commitment to their right to self-determination.

On the other hand, an extraordinary function was organized in Srinagar today to celebrate the Pakistan Day. Senior Kashmiri Hurriyet leader, Syed Ali Gilani and other speakers hoped that Pakistan would stay steadfast in its stand on Kashmir and continue to extend its political, diplomatic and moral support to Kashmiris’ just cause.

In a similar function in Islamabad, the leaders of the APHC-AJK Chapter reiterated that stability of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan was imperative for bringing about a lasting solution of the Kashmir dispute.

Earlier, four Indian troops were killed and two injured in an attack at Telbal in the outskirts of Srinagar. Following the attack, the troops in vengeance shot dead one innocent Kashmiri youth in the area. An Indian army Captain and a trooper were critically injured in a grenade blast at Gadhi in Jammu.
:<.::S Kashmir Media Service The best and free News Agency for Kashmir News
--------------------------------
happy pakistan day, people.:pakistan:
 
Hmmm i was reading an article where a spokemen of mullah umar said that these tailbans or should i say the proclaimed ones are not the real tailban, there are fighting the purpose which was intially intended to root out the external forces out of afghanistan.
We must understand this as well that what Mehsud is doing has been rejected by the tailbans themselves, clearly shows that mehsud is up to something else and he's not working for the tailban but for some external forces who want to destabilize pakistan. Besides if we havent supported the tailban like one memeber was stating it that we should never had, then we would have been probally in a more worse situation, remember that shumali ithaad was the one that brought the russians at the first place in afghanistan, putting our borders under severe risk, once the russians would have had estabilish full control in afganistan, next was our turn. However i would agree that we mismanaged the whole issue while we could have controlled it, we let the fire burn and this is the same fire that is today burning inside pakistan as well.
 
Hmmm i was reading an article where a spokemen of mullah umar said that these tailbans or should i say the proclaimed ones are not the real tailban, there are fighting the purpose which was intially intended to root out the external forces out of afghanistan.

If I am not wrong Taliban evolved from the Mujahideen(after they were left in the lurch) so created to fight the Soviet invasion...

We must understand this as well that what Mehsud is doing has been rejected by the tailbans themselves, clearly shows that mehsud is up to something else and he's not working for the tailban but for some external forces who want to destabilize pakistan.

why would anyone want to destabilize Pakistan??

Besides if we havent supported the tailban like one memeber was stating it that we should never had, then we would have been probally in a more worse situation, remember that shumali ithaad was the one that brought the russians at the first place in afghanistan, putting our borders under severe risk, once the russians would have had estabilish full control in afganistan, next was our turn. However i would agree that we mismanaged the whole issue while we could have controlled it, we let the fire burn and this is the same fire that is today burning inside pakistan as well.

The only problem was a lack of rehabilitation and opportunities and reliance on short-term quick fixes, I still don't see a movement in this direction.
 
Indeed, if the Taliban Want to Annex Parts of Pakistan to Afghanistan, one wonders why so many here are rooting for them!!

Blood should be thicker than water!
 
maybe the report is true, but i doubt if these people have the ability to dent pakistan. afghanistan is a failed state used by india et al to destabilise pakistan, do our people want to join the wonderful state of afghanistan, imagine whats on offer to them!!!!

afghanistan can not feed protect or provide anything for her people. if pakistan does not supply food and other provisions then the afghanis will clearly suffer. certainly i do not advocate that but one will be foolish not to teach them of their total dependancy. these reports are also welcome in the usa as they display a constant and clear hatred of pakistan, which they have both obliquely and openly wished for her destruction.

usa, afghanistan and her real allies are loosers and will not succeed in weekening pakistan.
 
afghanistan is a failed state used by india et al to destabilise pakistan

could you tell me honestly 1 good reason for the state of India to destabilise the state of Pakistan currently?

afghanistan can not feed protect or provide anything for her people. if pakistan does not supply food and other provisions then the afghanis will clearly suffer.

At the moment Pakistan is facing food shortages too if I am not wrong.

certainly i do not advocate that but one will be foolish not to teach them of their total dependancy.

There are other countries exporting stuff.. if Pakistan does anything to the contrary it would be the most stupid move ever.

these reports are also welcome in the usa as they display a constant and clear hatred of pakistan, which they have both obliquely and openly wished for her destruction.

then why does USA give you billions? and why do you use US weapons?

usa, afghanistan and her real allies are loosers and will not succeed in weekening pakistan.

you are also an ally... so is UAE, Jordan, Saudi, Turkey etc. are they all trying to weaken Pakistan?

Pakistan is in a mess because of Pakistanis, not anyone else..
Don't blame Mossad if you flunk exams pal.
 
could you tell me honestly 1 good reason for the state of India to destabilise the state of Pakistan currently?

One could argue for the same reason the Israelis are quite happy, were it not for the occasional international censure, to keep the Palestinian territories destabilized.

They have their wall, the settlements keep expanding, and the chaos in Palestine and the internecine fighting allows the Israelis an opportunity to project themselves as having the "moral upper hand".

At the moment Pakistan is facing food shortages too if I am not wrong.

Mostly due to smuggling - to Afghanistan - not scarcity of production.
 
One could argue for the same reason the Israelis are quite happy, were it not for the occasional international censure, to keep the Palestinian territories destabilized.

They have their wall, the settlements keep expanding, and the chaos in Palestine and the internecine fighting allows the Israelis an opportunity to project themselves as having the "moral upper hand".

Israel-Palestine and India-Pak situation is different.
Pak is a legitemate country and has one of the world's largest
1. Economies(by PPP)
2. Military (incl Nuke Arsenal)
3. Population

also Pakistan and India are declared enemies, and for India to destabilize a country whose (erstwhile) leaders have no qualms in declaring an official Nuke-New Delhi policy in case of attack on Pakistan (by anyone) is sheer bravado and stupidity. India and Pakistan are in (nuke) military terms very similar/equals too. India at the time would like to divert attention from its borders and concentrate attention upon its economy and infrastructure. For them to destabilize a country where there is a strong current of hatred amongst the populace for India is stupidity. What is happening in Pak&Astan is further proof that instead of destabilising India would rather like to help Pak.

I see no harm in stealing secrets, may be one or two assassinations but destabilising to me seems farfetched. I think RAW/Indian ideology is much different from ISI/Jihadi ideology.

Mostly due to smuggling - to Afghanistan - not scarcity of production.

If you says so; though as per FAO(I think) in the forseeable future there is expected to be production shortages.
 
Malang -

This is a mere mental exercise, I am not claiming one thing or another.

Pakistan's nuclear threshold does not include mere "destabilization" - therefore, escalation into an unconventional conflict is a low threat.

While all you said about Pakistan may be true, it does not in anyway benefit India. In fact, a prosperous, economically strong Pakistan has that many more resources to maintain some sort of conventional parity with India, neutralizing any conventional military options India could utilize.

Why would India want to do the latter? India still believes Pakistan supports cross border terrorism, therefore a prosperous Pakistan with a strong conventional military will not allow it to respond ala Op. Parakaram (with success).

A weak, destabilized Pakistan may perhaps splinter, and the desires of India's founding fathers, of a "reunification" may still come true.
 
Its just afghan nature... The same idiotic concept of pashtunistan and balochistan and breaking Pakistan up... They all say the same things be it taliban supporters or normal afghans...
 
Malang -

This is a mere mental exercise, I am not claiming one thing or another.

Pakistan's nuclear threshold does not include mere "destabilization" - therefore, escalation into an unconventional conflict is a low threat.

While all you said about Pakistan may be true, it does not in anyway benefit India. In fact, a prosperous, economically strong Pakistan has that many more resources to maintain some sort of conventional parity with India, neutralizing any conventional military options India could utilize.

India seeks conventional military parity with China and in the distant future with maybe even USA. Pakistan is sucked into this game on its own accord.

Any military operation b/w India and Pakistan will necessitate a response from India which will seek to keep its intensity within check so as not to escalate/ exacerbate the situation and give Pak an excuse to declare nukes are an option.

Pak has nukes, missiles to deliver them, and all its enemies within its missile ranges.. why the need for conventional parity??

Why would India want to do the latter? India still believes Pakistan supports cross border terrorism, therefore a prosperous Pakistan with a strong conventional military will not allow it to respond ala Op. Parakaram (with success).

Like most Indians I believe Pak supports cross-border terrorism and Jihadist policy because the ultimate reason is that Pak is not prosperous and neither has right policies.

So it is in India's interest to Help Pak achieve economic growth and have a democratically elected govt. that's why Bhutto was loved by Indians.

A weak, destabilized Pakistan may perhaps splinter, and the desires of India's founding fathers, of a "reunification" may still come true.

Re-Unification??? I believe some ultra-rad Hindu groups with their idea of Akhanda Bharata believe in annexation of areas under the so-called Indosphere and (I don't think they like Muslims so) for them concern is for land not people.

Generally and Historically, Indians are not avid seekers of empires or have a burning desire to be conquerors. Its not in the psyche to annex other lands IMO. Like Germans have realised after two WW that they cannot rule the world militarily so might as well try to impose dominance economically. This is the underlying psyche now for the Indians, dominate the world under the military means. Gone are the days of domination with strength of arms and military, today domination of strength of grey matter, information and economy is far superior and this is what everyone from India and even China realises and works upon.

Another eg Tata acquistions of JLR has more coverage and feeling of euphoria, confidence attached to it than a missile test like Sagarika. I feel the Pak's are a bit partial to their missile tests as compared to Indians.

In any case I don't think Indians even those with Pak heritage desire their ancestral homeland. I think what most Indians want to do is bury differences and have a closer relationship(something like Nepal-India, Eu-esque, Canada-US etc) which Pakistanis also want (at least the ones I met last week told me so).

Whether Partition was wrong/right is a thing left to historians, Internet forums and the Older generation, perhaps.
 

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom