What's new

Unconfirmed 9 Afghan Casualties at CHAMAN

India is a democracy, they elect their leaders, and it's pretty evident how much support he and his party receives. So no, I won't just exclusively "blame" Modi. This is not only disingenuous, but it's problematic thinking as you can't even recognise how much your Eastern neighbours hate you and what lengths they'd go through to damage your reputation. This includes an average Indian.

As for my solutions, I listed the basic outlines above. All the core issues must be addressed.
This topic is about Afghanistan. We know very well what is brewing in India.

So far your solution is, to make them realize that they can't mess with us... lol. Do you really expect those who have nothing but a gun, half of their family dead, traumatized and more drugs than food in their country to realize that...
 
.
Pakistan has the most confusing policy regarding Afghanistan, they are messing with us when they are in the worst possible condition with no one except Pakistan supporting them. Wait and see how they will become a hot potato in our *** once they become stable and India will help them become stable with aid so they remain a pain in our ***
Not long ago half the people here were jumping up with joy when this government took hold of Kabul, forgetting the snake will bite the hand that feeds it.
Only possible solution for Afghanistan was a unity government of all ethnic groups.
 
.
Abolish jigra laws in tribal belt and bring in state authority as judge and jury. Decoupling from Afg ethno politics should be a priority.
 
.
Either way, that will happen. The afghans have an inherent hatred towards Pakistan and Pakistanis. Once we kick out the afghans from Pakistan and permanently seal the border, they can't do much to us. They will also easily rot away and starve to death.
Bro I enjoy reading your posts. I know you are a patriot, but today I learned that you are also dangerous lol
 
.
Then the pattern you see is wrong;

You clearly haven't seen what Pakistani citizens have to say about Afghans, especially the ones residing in their country causing trouble.

Secondly, you're wrong again, Afghan hatred certainly is just for Pakistan (and Punjabis). Of course if their paths cross they'll go to war against anyone, that literally applies for every country against every other. Even Pakistan and China would go to war if something necessitated it.

But the hatred of Afghans is focused exclusively at Pakistan, for the most part. Not anyone else. Don't be ignorant. There are video recordings of them saying they are more happy to fight against Pakistan than the Jews. They equate Pakistan to Israel. This is a common sentiment. They prefer India over Pakistan, again a common sentiment. Some also support India in Kashmir.


Say this to one of them in real life 🤣

Whether you like it or not, the Afghans despise you to their core and consider you akin to Israel and filth.

The problem is our people are idiots, afghans have been very clear and our bleeding heart idiots have allowed the afghans to create endless fassad against us


Either the afghans act like civilized people and respect Pakistani sovereignty and borders or we take punitive, vindictive action against them


And I don't mean the government, I mean the average afghans who stays in Pakistan, builds a house, goes to school, works and then barks against Pakistan

These people are NAMAK HARAMS and we are fools for repeatedly giving them a chance
 
.
Abolish jigra laws in tribal belt and bring in state authority as judge and jury. Decoupling from Afg ethno politics should be a priority.

Yes, most Pakistanis are still western slaves, the funny thing is that those pakistanis who live in pakistan are more western slaves than those that are overseas. Overseas pakistan are far more nationalistic, forward thinking, and actually support their country even though they dont have to because they dont even live there. Whereby Pakistanis who live in pakistan are patwaris who want free electricity, free subsidies, free this and free that while crying and complaining about paying tax. While crying and complaining about inflation when prices in Pakistan are amongst the cheapest in the world.

Pakistani is that kind of creature who will cry and complain no matter they have every luxury under the heaven. A Pakistani is that kind of creature that will justify anything by just attaching "islam" with it. When you have no limits that you justify every british era law by comparing it with islam then what limit will you go? Will you soon marry your sisters and mothers and justify that to with "islam"?

Most of our laws even today in pakistan are british era gora organized laws. Be it the tribal jirga system, or the fact that anyone in pak today can murder someone, pay blood money, and get away for murder. This to was a british concept that most pakistanis support today by somehow justifying it with islam. Talk about getting rid of the british gora parliament system and you will be labelled the worst harami on earth. Our whole elites are in cahoots.

Its as if in Pakistan if your not more a shitty gora than the gora himself then your condemned to hell. Even the british era policy vis via afghanistan is still followed today by the pak army. What a bunch of scums.
 
.
More like the Kandahari Faction are trying to show it's importance through these stunts when the Haqqanis are the One Controlling Kabul and all the important Ministeries. Pakistan knows where to place the right card at the right time.

Important to flag this in the thread again. Members are letting their emotions get ahead of themselves and not analyzing things properly. There are various factions within the Taliban, some more pro/dependent on Pakistan and its patronage, some less. The Haqqanis have always been closer to Pakistan than the Kandaharis. The Taliban, whilst not some complete rag tag federation as some here would like to make out, is still not a professional army.

Should go full force and start hitting the Afghans, we will lose the support that we have in Pakistan. A lot of that support, as indicated above, is based on dependence on our patronage - which will become kryptonite if we have hostilities with Afghanistan. We will hand more power over to the Kandaharis and Mullah Baradar Group. Within these different groupings, the issue of the border is being used as an issue by which to vie for influence - we are more Afghan, more patriotic than the Haqqanis etc. An appeal to futile jingoism to present one group as having more legitimacy to rule than the other.

A lot of this is down to members having taken a somewhat naive approach to geopolitics: the Americans leave, the Taliban win, it's milk and honey for Pakistan. That was never gonna be the case. At least, Afghanistan is now united under one major grouping, and not in perpetual civil war as always. The situation we have is that we have a guerilla army, in a country that was one of the poorest and least developed even before the invasion, in control of a vast amount of territory, in many places where it previously was persona non grata too (other ethnic areas). The vast majority of the Taliban are illiterate, possess no qualifications, and have no proper structure or organization.

You cannot compare the actions at Chaman in the same way as a fight across the IB against India. That's not being rosetinted and soft on the Afghans, it's recognizing the real politik. The Indians have a centralised command structure, which is a reflection of their polity, and the arms of that command structure will act on the intention (express via policy, posture, or even direct orders etc) of its polity/government. There is a direct link. Where an Indian battalion is more anti-Pakistan than its government, it will know it is restrained by the chain of command and subservient to it, and will not only not be able to break that chain of command but not want to (as in it wouldn't want to actively conspire to do so as it knows the consequences - military jail, getting thrown out of the army, etc). In Afghanistan, you do not have that. The local commanders have a large degree of autonomy, and their links to the central capital are through whichever group they're part of, not some unified central state that has collective disicipline across its different actors.

Pakistan has a good proxy in Afghanistan in the form of the Haqqanis and we do have huge influence - but we do not have a complete monopoly, and neither do the Haqqanis. That said, I think we need to understand what this creates: resentment. We can all say we've helped the Afghans in XYZ ways over the years, and we have, but all that has been in the service of our own national interest. Effectively, we have controlled or attempted to control Afghanistan and greatly interfered in its own affairs, including by preventing it following a truly 'independent' foreign policy, for our national security. You are bound to have resentful factions pop up when you do that. That said, it's important to distinguish this resentment: I don't think the Kandaharis, even with all their jingoistic Pashtun bluster, are anti-Pakistan in the same way India is. They're anti-India because they want Afghanistan to be independent of its influence and be able to chart its own course.

In a nutshell, we're Iran, Afghanistan is an undeveloped Iraq, the Haqqanis are the Popular Mobilisation Units, and the Kandaharis are Muqtada al-Sadr. That's what we were inheriting post-Americans and we should have been more clear about that in our minds. The game we need to play, and are seemingly playing in Afghanistan, is the same the Iranians have played over the last decade in Iraq: increase our influence, bolster our proxys, increase dependence on the State on us so even those against our influence are constrained somewhat by that dependence.
 
.
Important to flag this in the thread again. Members are letting their emotions get ahead of themselves and not analyzing things properly. There are various factions within the Taliban, some more pro/dependent on Pakistan and its patronage, some less. The Haqqanis have always been closer to Pakistan than the Kandaharis. The Taliban, whilst not some complete rag tag federation as some here would like to make out, is still not a professional army.

Should go full force and start hitting the Afghans, we will lose the support that we have in Pakistan. A lot of that support, as indicated above, is based on dependence on our patronage - which will become kryptonite if we have hostilities with Afghanistan. We will hand more power over to the Kandaharis and Mullah Baradar Group. Within these different groupings, the issue of the border is being used as an issue by which to vie for influence - we are more Afghan, more patriotic than the Haqqanis etc. An appeal to futile jingoism to present one group as having more legitimacy to rule than the other.

A lot of this is down to members having taken a somewhat naive approach to geopolitics: the Americans leave, the Taliban win, it's milk and honey for Pakistan. That was never gonna be the case. At least, Afghanistan is now united under one major grouping, and not in perpetual civil war as always. The situation we have is that we have a guerilla army, in a country that was one of the poorest and least developed even before the invasion, in control of a vast amount of territory, in many places where it previously was persona non grata too (other ethnic areas). The vast majority of the Taliban are illiterate, possess no qualifications, and have no proper structure or organization.

You cannot compare the actions at Chaman in the same way as a fight across the IB against India. That's not being rosetinted and soft on the Afghans, it's recognizing the real politik. The Indians have a centralised command structure, which is a reflection of their polity, and the arms of that command structure will act on the intention (express via policy, posture, or even direct orders etc) of its polity/government. There is a direct link. Where an Indian battalion is more anti-Pakistan than its government, it will know it is restrained by the chain of command and subservient to it, and will not only not be able to break that chain of command but not want to (as in it wouldn't want to actively conspire to do so as it knows the consequences - military jail, getting thrown out of the army, etc). In Afghanistan, you do not have that. The local commanders have a large degree of autonomy, and their links to the central capital are through whichever group they're part of, not some unified central state that has collective disicipline across its different actors.

Pakistan has a good proxy in Afghanistan in the form of the Haqqanis and we do have huge influence - but we do not have a complete monopoly, and neither do the Haqqanis. That said, I think we need to understand what this creates: resentment. We can all say we've helped the Afghans in XYZ ways over the years, and we have, but all that has been in the service of our own national interest. Effectively, we have controlled or attempted to control Afghanistan and greatly interfered in its own affairs, including by preventing it following a truly 'independent' foreign policy, for our national security. You are bound to have resentful factions pop up when you do that. That said, it's important to distinguish this resentment: I don't think the Kandaharis, even with all their jingoistic Pashtun bluster, are anti-Pakistan in the same way India is. They're anti-India because they want Afghanistan to be independent of its influence and be able to chart its own course.

In a nutshell, we're Iran, Afghanistan is an undeveloped Iraq, the Haqqanis are the Popular Mobilisation Units, and the Kandaharis are Muqtada al-Sadr. That's what we were inheriting post-Americans and we should have been more clear about that in our minds. The game we need to play, and are seemingly playing in Afghanistan, is the same the Iranians have played over the last decade in Iraq: increase our influence, bolster our proxys, increase dependence on the State on us so even those against our influence are constrained somewhat by that dependence.

Oye bander, hitting afghanistan we will lose support? what support we have there to begin with? are you living in lala land.

Also Pak army has been hitting afghanistan since the last decade. So I stopped reading the rest of your BS on the second paragraph. Save me the headache.

The quality of discussion on this forum is literally ran by newbies with no concept of geopolitics, history, or any knowledge of affairs in afghanistan what so ever. Mods should really step up there game at this point.


Americans protect their interest, Russians protect their interest, hell even the Gangedeshis protect their interest. But idiotics pakis dont even know what their interest is or can figure it out until now :D
 
.
Oye bander, hitting afghanistan we will lose support? what support we have there to begin with? are you living in lala land.

Also Pak army has been hitting afghanistan since the last decade. So I stopped reading the rest of your BS on the second paragraph. Save me the headache.

The quality of discussion on this forum is literally ran by newbies with no concept of geopolitics, history, or any knowledge of affairs in afghanistan what so ever. Mods should really step up there game at this point.


Americans protect their interest, Russians protect their interest, hell even the Gangedeshis protect their interest. But idiotics pakis dont even know what their interest is or can figure it out until now :D
A different lala land to the one where you believe Pakistan could sustain two-front hostility.

Yes, countries protect their interests but that doesn't mean that them doing so doesn't create resentment in native populations, ergo Muqtada al Sadr, anti-Americanism in Pakistan, etc
 
.
Important to flag this in the thread again. Members are letting their emotions get ahead of themselves and not analyzing things properly. There are various factions within the Taliban, some more pro/dependent on Pakistan and its patronage, some less. The Haqqanis have always been closer to Pakistan than the Kandaharis. The Taliban, whilst not some complete rag tag federation as some here would like to make out, is still not a professional army.

Should go full force and start hitting the Afghans, we will lose the support that we have in Pakistan. A lot of that support, as indicated above, is based on dependence on our patronage - which will become kryptonite if we have hostilities with Afghanistan. We will hand more power over to the Kandaharis and Mullah Baradar Group. Within these different groupings, the issue of the border is being used as an issue by which to vie for influence - we are more Afghan, more patriotic than the Haqqanis etc. An appeal to futile jingoism to present one group as having more legitimacy to rule than the other.

A lot of this is down to members having taken a somewhat naive approach to geopolitics: the Americans leave, the Taliban win, it's milk and honey for Pakistan. That was never gonna be the case. At least, Afghanistan is now united under one major grouping, and not in perpetual civil war as always. The situation we have is that we have a guerilla army, in a country that was one of the poorest and least developed even before the invasion, in control of a vast amount of territory, in many places where it previously was persona non grata too (other ethnic areas). The vast majority of the Taliban are illiterate, possess no qualifications, and have no proper structure or organization.

You cannot compare the actions at Chaman in the same way as a fight across the IB against India. That's not being rosetinted and soft on the Afghans, it's recognizing the real politik. The Indians have a centralised command structure, which is a reflection of their polity, and the arms of that command structure will act on the intention (express via policy, posture, or even direct orders etc) of its polity/government. There is a direct link. Where an Indian battalion is more anti-Pakistan than its government, it will know it is restrained by the chain of command and subservient to it, and will not only not be able to break that chain of command but not want to (as in it wouldn't want to actively conspire to do so as it knows the consequences - military jail, getting thrown out of the army, etc). In Afghanistan, you do not have that. The local commanders have a large degree of autonomy, and their links to the central capital are through whichever group they're part of, not some unified central state that has collective disicipline across its different actors.

Pakistan has a good proxy in Afghanistan in the form of the Haqqanis and we do have huge influence - but we do not have a complete monopoly, and neither do the Haqqanis. That said, I think we need to understand what this creates: resentment. We can all say we've helped the Afghans in XYZ ways over the years, and we have, but all that has been in the service of our own national interest. Effectively, we have controlled or attempted to control Afghanistan and greatly interfered in its own affairs, including by preventing it following a truly 'independent' foreign policy, for our national security. You are bound to have resentful factions pop up when you do that. That said, it's important to distinguish this resentment: I don't think the Kandaharis, even with all their jingoistic Pashtun bluster, are anti-Pakistan in the same way India is. They're anti-India because they want Afghanistan to be independent of its influence and be able to chart its own course.

In a nutshell, we're Iran, Afghanistan is an undeveloped Iraq, the Haqqanis are the Popular Mobilisation Units, and the Kandaharis are Muqtada al-Sadr. That's what we were inheriting post-Americans and we should have been more clear about that in our minds. The game we need to play, and are seemingly playing in Afghanistan, is the same the Iranians have played over the last decade in Iraq: increase our influence, bolster our proxys, increase dependence on the State on us so even those against our influence are constrained somewhat by that dependence.
Not familiar with the Iraq analogy, but the rest is a decent explanation of the highly nuanced situation. The one place I would add a bit of fine print is that Pakistan's policy has not always been based on self interest. For-example, taking in Afghan refugees was something that is truly a generous act. Otherwise I agree, we are dealing with an extremely fractured society.
 
.
Not familiar with the Iraq analogy, but the rest is a decent explanation of the highly nuanced situation. The one place I would add a bit of fine print is that Pakistan's policy has not always been based on self interest. For-example, taking in Afghan refugees was something that is truly a generous act. Otherwise I agree, we are dealing with an extremely fractured society.

Iraq has multiple factions and ethnicities within it: Kurds, Sunnis, and Shias (the majority). The Shias are analogous to the Pashtuns in Afghanistan, as they are the biggest group and dominate the country. Iran has controlled Iraq since the withdrawal of American forces through Shia militias and their political parties - their latest iteration being an umbrella force known as Hasd al Shabi or the Popular Mobilization Forces in English, a coalition of Iran-aligned Shia militias battling ISIS. You may remember them from the Soleimani assassination - their Deputy Commander was the guy killed in the car with Soleimani,. These Shia militias are all pro-Iran: they are trained, funded and armed by Iran via the IRGC. Through them and their political parties, Iran holds massive influence in the Iraqi state.

At the same time, Iraq also Muqtada Al Sadr and his Mahdi Army. These guys were also trained, funded and armed by Iran during the insurgency and gave America a fair hiding during it. However, Muqtada al-Sadra now sees himself as more of an Iraqi nationalist, and in that lieu, he opposes the way Iran practically runs Iraq via its proxies (even though he was once one of them).

The Haqqanis are like the Popular Mobilisation Units and the militias that make it up. The Kandaharis are like Sadr. The Kandaharis want to be out from under the Pakistani thumb like Sadr wants to be out from under the Iranian thumb.

This is a pretty understandable reaction, nobody with any self-respect wants their country to be the proxy of another - that isn't a moral judgement on Pakistan using proxy's in Afghanistan, it's just pointing out the obvious backlash that creates amongst certain quarters when you do that. It's something you have to manage. Hope that that clears stuff up with the Iraq analogy.

And you are absolutely right on the fine print - Pakistan most definitely has not acted in its own self-interest many, many times. No other country has ever taken in so many refugees, and the way we at present are operating border crossings as a free-for-all is wrong. The Taliban (both the Haqqanis and Kandaharis) do not have the right to "free movement" across the border just because there are better opportunities for commerce, health, education and familial links. There are other qualifications too obviously, such as general Afghan ungratefulness, pipe dreaming over the Durand Line (an emotional-psychological issue that the Kandaharis seem to be playing up as a bridgehead against the Haqqanis), and the general negative perception of Pakistan in Afghanistan (something we really do need to change but will take time).
 
.
A different lala land to the one where you believe Pakistan could sustain two-front hostility.

Yes, countries protect their interests but that doesn't mean that them doing so doesn't create resentment in native populations, ergo Muqtada al Sadr, anti-Americanism in Pakistan, etc

Once again more idiotics statements. Pakistan has been sustaining a 2 front war now for well over 2 decades. Whether people want to admit it or not. Afghan native population already hated Pakistan since the day it was born.

You believe that in some way pakistans actions led to afghan resentment when it never really did. Afghan resentment against Pakistan is well documented since august 14th 1947. Please go check a doctor and take your medication :crazy:
 
.
Iraq has multiple factions and ethnicities within it: Kurds, Sunnis, and Shias (the majority). The Shias are analogous to the Pashtuns in Afghanistan, as they are the biggest group and dominate the country. Iran has controlled Iraq since the withdrawal of American forces through Shia militias and their political parties - their latest iteration being an umbrella force known as Hasd al Shabi or the Popular Mobilization Forces in English, a coalition of Iran-aligned Shia militias battling ISIS. You may remember them from the Soleimani assassination - their Deputy Commander was the guy killed in the car with Soleimani,. These Shia militias are all pro-Iran: they are trained, funded and armed by Iran via the IRGC. Through them and their political parties, Iran holds massive influence in the Iraqi state.

At the same time, Iraq also Muqtada Al Sadr and his Mahdi Army. These guys were also trained, funded and armed by Iran during the insurgency and gave America a fair hiding during it. However, Muqtada al-Sadra now sees himself as more of an Iraqi nationalist, and in that lieu, he opposes the way Iran practically runs Iraq via its proxies (even though he was once one of them).

The Haqqanis are like the Popular Mobilisation Units and the militias that make it up. The Kandaharis are like Sadr. The Kandaharis want to be out from under the Pakistani thumb like Sadr wants to be out from under the Iranian thumb.

This is a pretty understandable reaction, nobody with any self-respect wants their country to be the proxy of another - that isn't a moral judgement on Pakistan using proxy's in Afghanistan, it's just pointing out the obvious backlash that creates amongst certain quarters when you do that. It's something you have to manage. Hope that that clears stuff up with the Iraq analogy.

And you are absolutely right on the fine print - Pakistan most definitely has not acted in its own self-interest many, many times. No other country has ever taken in so many refugees, and the way we at present are operating border crossings as a free-for-all is wrong. The Taliban (both the Haqqanis and Kandaharis) do not have the right to "free movement" across the border just because there are better opportunities for commerce, health, education and familial links. There are other qualifications too obviously, such as general Afghan ungratefulness, pipe dreaming over the Durand Line (an emotional-psychological issue that the Kandaharis seem to be playing up as a bridgehead against the Haqqanis), and the general negative perception of Pakistan in Afghanistan (something we really do need to change but will take time).
Gotcha.

I feel distilling Pakistans role in AFG as simply a proxy is too simple. It's important to mention that by this simplification method, all political factions in AFG would then be somebodies proxy. And going by that standard Pakistan didn't do anything different than what other parties to the conflict were doing, yet it is Pakistan alone that gets the hate for it.

That is the limitation of over simplification of a highly nuanced issue. In fact if we look at it that way, it's better to say that some factions in AFG (such as the Kandharis in your words) are using this to their advantage by making an issue out of something, that shouldn't be an issue.

Thanks for clarifying the analogy :)
 
.

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom