Mullah Omar-led Afghan Taliban ready to attack Pakistani Taliban

[HRK]

In Afghanistan war is business a very profitable business……political and strategic vacuum in Afghanistan is in favor of lot of International and local powers & players…….it does not matter which player is playing its game with which title……and with the alliance of which other player…..be it Talibans or NATO/US, India or Pakistan everyone have its own goal…..

If any move by any other player could serve our purpose…….y should we ignore it or oppose it……..???

 

[PWFI]

Kick TTP A$$ Mollah Omar---happy hunting !

 

[forcetrip]

Some of this news is confirmed and seeing that impatience is going to win, the next week is going to be a solid blood bath for both parties involved.

 

[Pandora]

Good news as without Afghani Taliban support TTP is nothing.

 

[HRK]

what do you think?

Pls enlighten me I will b obliged……….

 

[Awesome]

Needs more elaboration and covered by more news sources. So I feel there may be some truth to it, but mostly speculation.

 

[muse]

In Afghanistan war is business a very profitable business……political and strategic vacuum in Afghanistan is in favor of lot of International and local powers & players…….it does not matter which player is playing its game with which title……and with the alliance of which other player…..be it Talibans or NATO/US, India or Pakistan everyone have its own goal…..

If any move by any other player could serve our purpose…….y should we ignore it or oppose it……..???

Sure that sounds reasonable - but there are elements missing which if we include in, will change this from reasonable to unreasonable - Consider:

Pakistan foreign policy in the region and it's perception in the world suffers from the suggestion that Pakistan support and maintain the Taliban and Pakistan allows it's territory to be used as a "safe haven" for anti-NATO forces, which are also against Pakistan, a NATO Major non-member ally.

As US and NATO forces exit from Afghanistan, should it become more compelling that Pakistan indeed supported the anti NATO forces, the consequences for such will be of a nature we can describe as substantial and long term with implications for the territorial integrity of Pakistan.

In such a scenario, can we be any thing but opposed? After all how do we explain to the world that the movement we have said we do not support is acting, certainly appears to be acting, on our behalf and to serve our interests??

 

[Irfan Baloch]

If any move by any other player could serve our purpose…….y should we ignore it or oppose it……..???

excellent point but tell me what would I say to Molana Fazl Ur Rehman who is mourning the death of TTP number 2 ? and also considers Mullah Omar as his spiritual leader and true Amir Al Momineen of this god forsaken region?

so far TTP has always been one step ahead of our Pak army, it will outwit it again and save Maulana Fazl Rehman from the heartache

 

[muse]

To put an emphasis on the larger picture we are talking about, please consider this editorial, @Awesome do consider:


Short on vision: Foreign policy priorities


PRIME Minister Nawaz Sharif’s initial despatch to Pakistani diplomatic missions mapping out his government’s foreign policy priorities is a document shorn of ambition and short on vision. Essentially, Mr Sharif has said that his focus will be on economic diplomacy and on stabilising the region on the security front — with a few words, platitudes really, thrown in about relations with the usual countries foreign policy tends to focus on. Perhaps the less-than-invigorating despatch is rooted in Mr Sharif’s decision to, for now, keep the foreign minister’s portfolio with himself and so he would prefer to unveil his major foreign policy initiatives himself at a later date. However, to the extent that the initial despatch is indicative of Mr Sharif and his team’s foreign policy thinking, it appears that a return to first principles is required.

What does the world see first and foremost when it looks at Pakistan? In his note, Mr Sharif has talked about boosting trade, foreign investment and economic cooperation. He has also talked about promoting peace in the region, with specific mentions of the attempted reconciliation process in Afghanistan and the pursuit of “normalcy” in ties with India. All laudable goals, written in Foreign Office-speak, but they miss the point. When the world looks at Pakistan, rightly or wrongly, it tends to see a security threat emanating from this soil. China, the perennial ally, looks to some investment opportunities but always returns to the issue of Islamists traipsing up the Karakoram Highway and into western China, where the rising power’s Muslim population is located. Afghanistan sees a role for Pakistan in the Afghan reconciliation process — largely because it’s tied to its fundamental complaint of Afghan Taliban sanctuaries on this side of the border. India, the central focus of the security state here, worries about another Mumbai, in addition to the original rivalry over Kashmir. The US worries about another 9/11, this time traced back to our tribal areas; the UK fears another 7/7-type attack linked back to Pakistan. Russia worries about Islamist ingress into its zone of influence in Central Asia. The list goes on.

The point is that Pakistan has a perception, reality and credibility problem: we have yet to convince the world that we are not a threat to ourselves and it. Until that changes, it will taint every aspect of Pakistan’s foreign policy. While Pakistanis fret over external violations of our sovereignty by external actors, the outside world wonders why we are unable to take on the threat within and re-establish the state’s writ.

 

[RKhan]

This article is completely false. The Afghan Taliban and Pakistani Taliban borrow fighters from each other all the time. How else do you think that 200 men attacks on army posts are possible.

 

[jaibi]

I do not see infighting as a good thing between militant groups; on the surface it seems good but the problem is the existence of militants not their allegiances. History has been witness to militant goups turning on their supporters and the TTP are the offsprings of the Afghani Talibians. Infighting leads to more persecution of the local populace and a more hardcore militancy coming out.

 

[Marwat Khan Lodhi]

False propaganda. Afghan taliban part is a lie. Ansar ul islam, a bareilvi organization is already engaged in war with LI and TTP. Lashkar e taiba is allied with TTP, it would never make partnership with bareilvi militants.

 

[khanboy007]

I think its false

but (if its true)

what if we get sandwiched ????

 

[Marwat Khan Lodhi]

TTP some times struggles to keep its group fully intact, but its core element mehsuds enjoys brotherly and spirtual relationships with haqqanis, Afghan taliban and even hafiz gul bahadur group.

 

[OrionHunter]

You mean it's good that Afghan Talib can now be said to be the instruments of the Pakistani state? Do you guys ever think about the kinds of things you write?

How can it possibly be true?? Think about it -

Yep! Kayani himself mentioned this to his American counterpart. Some militant groups (like the Afghan Taliban, LeT, and JeM?) are the PA's 'strategic assets', as he said! Probably a slip of the tongue that raised a lot of eyebrows! A chief should think before he speaks, otherwise a lot of cats would be out of the bag!