US threatens Taliban airstrikes in Quetta

[pakdefender]

After 8 years of lies, deciet and killing civilians , the Amricans have failed to achieve anything significant in Afghanistan.

rigged elections , increased drug production , superficial development and thats just about it.

The people who are fighting the Americans in Afghanistan are your ordinary Afghans from the south who see the US/NATO as an occupying force that is responsible for 1000s of deaths in their country.

Now when the Americans are getting bloddied up and are unable to find any solutions ( others than more civlian deaths ) they want to use Pakistan as the excuse for their failures.

They will never learn , they were getting bloddied up in Vietnam and the excuse they came up with was that the Viet Cong runs back into Cambodia. The foolishly attacked Cambodia and got defeated by the 'yellow man' ahaha , it hurt the white man so bad that they still cant get over it.

The continutation of this war is just due to American Military's ego getting hurt and its reputition going to tatters.

Go Home Yanks! Go Home! If you havent been able to pull it off in 8 years you cant do it in the next 12 months.

There is no Quetta shura or any such thing , it just a figmnent of imagination of the dumb people that cooked up reports of WMD and what not.

 

[gambit]

US is really lucky nation ,in fact muslim ummah lost their identity divided into many countries and concept of ummah is lost, imagine if all muslims (1.5 Bill) united under one chalifah , US could not even think to attack any muslim country Iraq or Afghanistan.

Still if muslims all over the world boycot your products and take out their money from US banks can you imagine what will happen to US.

Only Arabs have 30% of total money in US banks

That is a big if and I have better odds at beating the house in Vegas than the world's muslims agreeing to boycott Western products. You depend on us from the computer technology you are using to ****. So please get a dose of reality.

 

[Comet]

That is a big if and I have better odds at beating the house in Vegas than the world's muslims agreeing to boycott Western products. You depend on us from the computer technology you are using to ****. So please get a dose of reality.

But, it still IS a possibility!

 

[TaimiKhan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/04/world/africa/04iht-islam.html

Muslim boycotts of Danish products costly

Union co-op boycotts Danish products - Retail - ArabianBusiness.com

Saudi Gazette - Boycott of Danish products spreads

FOXNews.com - Muslim Boycotts Hurt Danish Firms - U.S. & World

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

But, it still IS a possibility!

No.

Don't expect anyone else to fight your wars for you, least of all the Arabs.

 

[PostColonial]

The question is: What does Pakistan gain by supporting the rebuilding of Afghanistan?

The answer is, nothing. Infact, it loses.

 

[Fracker]

You depend on us from the computer technology you are using to ****.

I don't think there is any harm in using US computer Technology, US **** to find out how to F US. (I think you got the point)

btw if you want then we have china as our neighbor who can provide us much cheaper technology then yours.. just we need to take initiative like we did after Denmark..

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

The question is: What does Pakistan gain by supporting the rebuilding of Afghanistan?

The answer is, nothing. Infact, it loses.

Don't really see how you came to that conclusion.

Pakistan gains a lot from Afghanstan rebuilding and becoming stable - possibly a reduction in the drug trade, reduction of instability along its Western border, an end to the Taliban insurgency and an end to weapons being smuggled into Pakistan and used by various anti-state groups and criminal elements.

On the trade side - access to the CAR's gas and oil resources and potential transit routes through Pakistan to access other nations. In fact, that was the reason behind supporting the Taliban when they first started to gain power.

Where Pakistan does not gain is if Afghanistan chooses to act as an Indan proxy to destabilize Pakistan, and supports Pashtun and Baluch seperatist movements in Pakistan and claims Pakistani territory - are you suggesting that a rebuilt Afghanistan would puruse those policies?

If not, then Pakistan has nothing to lose from a rebuilt Afghanistan.

 

[Fracker]

The question is: What does Pakistan gain by supporting the rebuilding of Afghanistan?

The answer is, nothing. Infact, it loses.

We already gain too much while helping US in rebuilding Afghanistan, i.e.

1. 2000+ Soldiers dead, 10000+ civilian deaths and more casualties
2. Corrupt Government
3. Worst Economy Crisis (most of the investors run away)
4. No Cricket games (again loss to PCB)
5. The titles like Fazullullah, BM, AM.. etc
6. 100s of innocent pakistani suffering in USA jails
7. More pressure of taxes, increase in prices, etc due to rupee downfall, and security conditions
8. Drone Attacks!!

and all this just to supporting US for (so-called) rebuilding Afghanistan

 

[waraich66]

That is a big if and I have better odds at beating the house in Vegas than the world's muslims agreeing to boycott Western products. You depend on us from the computer technology you are using to ****. So please get a dose of reality.

American dont like American cars due to their unrealibility same problem is with their all other products , because of their use and throw concept.

Chinies and Japanies are producing better products by copying US technology.

Era of American technology is now over wake up man ! Japan is ahead of US in nano technology

 

[PostColonial]

Don't really see how you came to that conclusion.

Pakistan gains a lot from Afghanstan rebuilding and becoming stable - possibly a reduction in the drug trade, instability along its Western border, an end to the insurgency and an end to weapons being smuggled into Pakistan and used by various anti-state groups and criminal elements.

On the trade side - access to the CAR's gas and oil resources and potential transit routes through Pakistan to access other nations. In fact, that was the reason behind supporting the Taliban when they first started to gain power.

Where Pakistan does not gain is if Afghanistan chooses to act as an Indan proxy to destabilize Pakistan, and supports Pashtun and Baluch seperatist movements in Pakistan and claims Pakistani territory - are you suggesting that a rebuilt Afghanistan would puruse those policies?

If not then Pakistan has nothing to lose from a rebuilt Afghanistan.

You're missing the big picture here.

The fact is that a stable Afghanistan would be built largely on Pashtun nationalism, which is something that Pakistan would avoid by any means possible. Afghanistan still claims a huge chunk of Pakistani territory, and a stronger Afghanistan would invariably try to resolve this dispute on its own terms.

Secondly, a stable Afghanistan would also necessarily be pro-India, there's no two ways about it. No Pakistani nationalist would like to see that happen.

Conclusion? Pakistan would rather support a fundamentalist regime like the Taliban, which it can use for both "strategic depth" and to fund various insurgencies in the east, rather than see a stronger Afghanistan that is capable of acting independently for its own interests.

 

[Fracker]

The fact is that a stable Afghanistan would be built largely on Pashtun nationalism,

Of course, i forgot karzai (A PASTHOON) is a USA puppet, who said after joining the government that we will take dudrant line issue to pakistan.

 

[Comet]

The question is: What does Pakistan gain by supporting the rebuilding of Afghanistan?

The answer is, nothing. Infact, it loses.

Thats a pretty bad thinking. One gains a lot when ones neighbors are at peace. Although India doesn't seem to know the fact!

 

[Y2A]

@ Fracker

People still propelling along with all their conspiracy theories all around the country and different channels and various forums about what had happened with baitullah mehsood with considering the fact that he was targeted by US after being identified, BM was used and then discard as usually happens with US assets, and in his own mind BM thought that he and his organization is fighting against the "kafir" Pakistanis who 1st turned their backs towards them and then they helped US in killings of innocent tribal on the both sides of Durand line on the name of WOT and got paid for that by the US and allies, he undoubtedly used by our enemies, but brutal military action in waziristan, swat and FATA provided him legitimacy in front of the local people who later joined him mostly in the spirit of vengeance , US drone attacks add to the situation and BM's claims,
so if he was the monster we were his Dr Frankenstein.

What you think? Pak government take orders from you? or USA?

off course not, i was actually speaking for my self & no doubt my reaction was more on the emotional side of the matter then rational, and probably most straight forward people will think that way which are termed as silent majority, that's why use that phrase which probably gone over your head after reviewing you thoughts.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

You're missing the big picture here.

The fact is that a stable Afghanistan would be built largely on Pashtun nationalism, which is something that Pakistan would avoid by any means possible. Afghanistan still claims a huge chunk of Pakistani territory, and a stronger Afghanistan would invariably try to resolve this dispute on its own terms.

Secondly, a stable Afghanistan would also necessarily be pro-India, there's no two ways about it. No Pakistani nationalist would like to see that happen.

Conclusion? Pakistan would rather support a fundamentalist regime like the Taliban, which it can use for both "strategic depth" and to fund various insurgencies in the east, rather than see a stronger Afghanistan that is capable of acting independently for its own interests.

The Pashtun are a plurality in Afghanistan, not a majority. What happens to the remaining 60% of Afghans if all you focus on is 'Pashtun nationalism'?

I'd argue you would see a return to much of the ethnic tensions. violence and chaos of the past. The only way Afghanistan can be viable is through a sharing of power amongst all ethnicities, and a decentralized state.

Other flaws I see in your argument are that when Afghanistan was a stable state, before the Soviet intervention, it actively claimed Pakistani territory and attempted to foment speratist insurgencies in the Pashtun areas by playing the 'Pashtun nationalism' card, yet nothing came of those attempts and the Pakistani Pashtun remained largely disinterested. Why would they be interested this time around?

In addition, Pakistan itself supported a movement that had a strong streak of Pashtun nationalism in it, the Taliban. You should read Steve Coll's book, Ghost Wars. In it he talks about how the Taliban wooed the Pashtun tribal leadership, including the current president Karzai, whose influential family was initially a supporter of the Taliban, with a vision of Pashtun ascendancy to power and a return of Pashtun glory in Afghanistan.

And why would a stable Afghanistan automatically be 'pro-India'? Because they claim Pakistani territory and would return to their policies of promoting separatist insurgencies in Sovereign Pakistani territory?

Afghanistan will then itself be guilty of any resulting Pakistani intervention in Afghanistan to stop such policies. Pashtun nationalism or not, Afghanistan's future is in her hands. A stable Afghanistan, based on whatever nationalism you want, that limits itself to its borders and does not destabilize neighboring states or allow others to use its territory to do so, is no danger to neighboring states.