What's new

Afghani Taliban and Pakistani Taliban are one and the same

F86 Saber

FULL MEMBER
Feb 17, 2010
1,086
0
1,282
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Oh? Preventing peace? Like the the attack on the Indian Parliament and the 26/11 Mumbai attacks? Ah, I should have known, it was that darned RAW which was responsible!! Jeeez! :sick: At least that's what your venerated, so called 'security expert' and 'strategist' Zaid Hamid blares out from the rooftops even today and everybody has lapped it up including your media!

No, preventing peace by blowing up samjhota express and blaming it on ISI, digging up cricket pitches to prevent cricket matches from happening. Don't pretend there are no jingoistic elements in India more vocal and as absurd as Zaid Hamid speaking against Pakistan because Zaid Hamid is just one person, you have a ruling party that opposes peace with Pakistan at any cost.
 

muse

ELITE MEMBER
Oct 26, 2006
13,018
0
12,484
Where is Mullah Omar?



US establishes contact with Mullah Omar
By Qaiser Butt
Published: June 14, 2011

Former Afghan Taliban spokesman is said to have facilitated the contact.
ISLAMABAD:

The United States has established contacts with elusive Taliban leader Mullah Omar to negotiate an end to the conflict in Afghanistan. A former Afghan Taliban spokesman has played a key role in the US-Taliban communication, a source told The Express Tribune.

Abdul Haqiq, who was operating under the alias of Dr Mohammad Hanif as an Afghan Taliban spokesman, is said to have helped Washington reach out to Mullah Omar
.

Dr Hanif was arrested by US and Afghan intelligence agents from a secret location in Afghanistan in June 2007. He was one of the high-profile Afghan Taliban spokesmen along with Yousuf Ahmadi, appointed after chief spokesman Abdul Latif Hakimi was arrested in October 2005 in Pakistan.

So far, several claims have been made by the US about negotiations with the Taliban but Islamabad and Kabul have never been taken into confidence over the much speculated-about talks.

According to reports, the US had offered the Taliban control over the south of Afghanistan, while leaving the north for the other political forces under American influence. However, this was rejected by the Taliban.


“The acceptance of such a proposal could not be possible for the Taliban as it could lead to the disintegration of Afghanistan,” said former Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) chief Gen (retd) Hamid Gul.

However, a Pakistani diplomat in Kabul remains optimistic about the talks. “The Taliban are aware that it will be difficult to defeat foreign troops in Afghanistan, or capture the entire country,” he said, adding, “Similarly, the US is also aware that it cannot defeat the Taliban in the next few years.”

On the other hand, a senior official in the Foreign Office is not as sure of the success of the US-Taliban talks. “Such talks are bound to fail as Washington is trying to achieve its goals without taking [Afghan President Hamid] Karzai into confidence. If at all the Afghan Taliban agree to the reconciliation talks, their preference will be with Afghan leaders over foreign forces,” the official argued.

Central Asian diplomats in Islamabad have also expressed their doubts about the practicability of the US-Taliban talks.


“On the one hand, the US is building six permanent military bases in Afghanistan, and on the other, talking about the withdrawal of its troops from the country,” an ambassador of a Central Asian state was quoted by a Foreign Office official as saying .

Iranian and Russian diplomats in Islamabad are also doubtful of an actual and meaningful US-led foreign troops’ pullout from Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, chief of the Afghan High Peace Council Prof. Burhanuddin Rabbani told the Afghan House of Representatives earlier this month that his council had made contacts with the Afghan Taliban. He further told the house that the Taliban were not willing to trust the Afghan government’s reconciliation process. “The Taliban nurse doubts about Kabul’s initiative,” he said.

The council during the last five years also contacted other armed opposition leaders such as Gulbuddin Hekmatyar as well as the Haqqani network, Rabbani claimed.

The council had previously said it had made direct and indirect contacts with the Afghan Taliban leadership, but the Taliban still seem to be insistent on their call for a withdrawal of US and Nato forces from Afghanistan as a pre-condition for talks with Kabul.

However, the Afghan parliament said that the achievements of the council have so far been satisfactory.

Former Pakistani ambassador to Afghanistan Rustum Shah Mohmand is also doubtful about the sincerity on the part of Kabul for the success of the so-called Afghan reconciliation effort. Mohmand told The Express Tribune that those who are enjoying government privileges in Afghanistan are not interested in the success of the effort.

“In real terms, such privileged people are opposed to the withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan as they are very well aware that they will also have to pack up as soon as foreign troops are withdrawn,” he observed.
 

khurasaan1

FULL MEMBER
Jun 25, 2010
1,797
0
404
TTP are CIA/MI6/Mosaad agents....while Afghan Talibans are excellent pplz....trying to get freedom from the invaderz/foreign forces......:what:
 

CENTCOM

PROFESSIONAL
Apr 30, 2010
1,519
34
2,436
Country
United States
Location
United States
Can you provide evidence of any attacks on American personnel by TTP operatives?

I am not saying there is firm evidence of US backing TTP but, by the same logic that you hold Pakistan government responsible for Taliban safe havens in Pakistan, we can hold the US -- which is the real power in Afghanistan -- responsible for TTP safe havens in Afghanistan.

As for foreign support of TTP, there are many suspects including, ironically, some Arab governments like UAE.

Yes, sir, I can. In the following link you hear Pakistani Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud vow attacks on the U.S:


In the following link witness the TTP 20MAY11 attack U.S consulate convoy in Peshawar

BBC News - Pakistan Taliban bomb US consulate convoy in Peshawar

In the following link see how the Taliban were implicated in the Faisal Shehzad Times Square terror plot


The time for blame and conspiracy theories is well passed. TTP are in Pakistan and Afghanistan using each country as a safe-haven to attack the other. It is only through combined efforts that neither Pakistan nor Afghanistan will be safe-havens and the Taliban will have nowhere to run or hide. It is that simple, a porous border becomes instead a vice to crush the insurgents. It is that simple, two natural allies agree to defeat one common enemy. It is forum readers, that simple, for with Taliban stability, security and development are not possible, while without Taliban those previously listed attributes of a secure and prosperous nation, and much more are in the grasp of the great nations of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

CDR Bill Speaks,
DET, United States Central Command
U.S. Central Command
 
Last edited by a moderator:

unicorn

FULL MEMBER
Oct 6, 2010
1,416
0
958
In ten years of war in Afghanistan are they successful in eliminating Taliban?------------Of Course NO
What makes them think that in another next ten year they will be successful against them?
While they are making efforts for peace treaties with Taliban they are asking Pakistan to do the oppostie.
Is it justifiable?-----------Of Course NOT
 

Developereo

ELITE MEMBER
Jul 31, 2009
14,100
25
15,871
Country
Pakistan
Location
Australia
Yes, sir, I can. In the following link you hear Pakistani Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud vow attacks on the U.S:

Vows to attack. Wow, I bet that hurt real bad!

In the following link witness the TTP 20MAY11 attack U.S consulate convoy in Peshawar
[...]
In the following link see how the Taliban were implicated in the Faisal Shehzad Times Square terror plot

Maybe they're angry 'cuz the check was late.

Seriously, these guys are a bunch of amateur freelancers who are angry at the US -- they are not the core of TTP by any means.

The time for blame and conspiracy theories is well passed. TTP are in Pakistan and Afghanistan using each country as a safe-haven to attack the other.

So you are saying that, even with all the resources of a global superpower and first class allies, NATO is unable to deny sanctuary to terrorists. The TTP guys running from Pakistan manage to find plenty of safe hidinng places right under NATO's nose.

And you expect Pakistan to do the job with miniscule resources?

Or, to put another way, even if Pakistan ejected all the Taliban from Pakistan, they would set up shop in Afghanistan, since NATO is clearly unable to deny sanctuary to terrorists within its own territory.
 

Angad_NSA

FULL MEMBER
Jun 14, 2011
147
0
92
So you are saying that, even with all the resources of a global superpower and first class allies, NATO is unable to deny sanctuary to terrorists. The TTP guys running from Pakistan manage to find plenty of safe hidinng places right under NATO's nose.

And you expect Pakistan to do the job with miniscule resources?

That's because these bad guys are hiding in Pakistani tribal areas, where NATO can't enter. Otherwise, Pakistan will start shouting about invasion conspiracies.

And, Pakistan itself isn't acting on these terror groups on their own soil either, because Pakistani elites consider these groups as strategic assets, for use against neighbours.
 

niaz

PDF THINK TANK: CONSULTANT
Jun 18, 2006
5,130
210
11,153
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
A relevant article was published in the Dawn of June 14, 2011. This clearly indicates that Pak & Afghan Taliban have had close links going back to the 1990’s.


Of good and bad TalibanBy Khadim Hussain | From the Newspaper

June 14, 2011 (2 days ago)TWO widely reported events in recent days struck hard at Pakistan`s strategic depth policy in Afghanistan and Central Asia.

The first event occurred when the Swat Taliban and Afghan Taliban attacked a local check post and local installations killing dozens of people, including the security forces, in a joint operation in the Barawal (Shaltalu) area of Upper Dir bordering the Afghan province of Kunar on June 1, 2011. (It is still not known whether a similar attack by militants in South Waziristan was linked to the Afghan Taliban).

The second event was the reported killing of militant commander, Ilyas Kashmiri, in a drone attack in South Waziristan. Kashmiri was believed to have been working as commander of the Al Qaeda-affiliated Harkat-ul Jihad al Islami and believed to be the mastermind behind the GHQ attack in Rawalpindi and that on the Mehran naval aviation base in Karachi.

According to reports by the local people, the apple orchard where the militant group along with Ilyas Kashmiri was hit by a US drone in the outskirts of Wana, South Waziristan, belongs to another Wana-based militant commander, Maulvi Nazir. The security establishment of Pakistan had so far considered Maulvi Nazir a `good Taliban` active only in Afghanistan and not involved in attacks on Pakistani security forces and military installations.

According to the locals, Maulvi Nazir had been enjoying cordial relations with the security establishment of Pakistan which apparently believed that, besides the Haqqani network and Mulla Omar, Maulvi Nazir could be useful for gaining `strategic depth` in Afghanistan and Central Asia. And hence the policy appears flawed and strategically miscalculated.

A look at history at this point may not be out of place. The strategic depth policy envisaging a co-opted Afghanistan and a march into the Central Asian Republics was initially envisioned by Gen Ziaul Haq in the early 1980s. Realising the immense strength of a religious emotional appeal, the security establishment of Pakistan perceived that by supporting non-state actors and militant militias, Pakistan could achieve its objectives for political influence and resource exploration in Afghanistan and Central Asia.

The security establishment perceived, in defiance of all logic and objective reality, that through the use of non-state actors Pakistan could defeat India in political influence, explore the energy reservoirs in Central Asia and expand control over a large swathe of the planet to be considered a regional power.

For this to happen, the security establishment adapted proxies, supported the Taliban government in the 1990s as well as the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan after the government was dislodged by the Security Council`s mandate granted to Nato and Isaf forces.

Analysts and policy experts have since been pointing out the inherent flaws in the construct of the strategic depth policy but to no avail. All the years of the decade of the `90s and into the 21st century, the security establishment of Pakistan had engaged with non-state actors and private militias active in Afghanistan and India, with no consideration being given to the policy`s socio-cultural and socio-political impacts.

Though things on the security front substantially changed after 9/11 around the globe, the security establishment of Pakistan stuck to its outdated paradigm — favours to elements like the Haqqani network, the Maulvi Nazir group, the Afghan Taliban leadership, the Jamaatud Dawa and several others continued throughout the `90s to date. At the same time, the security establishment of Pakistan captured dozens of Al Qaeda operatives and handed them over to the US besides cracking down on those organisations which frequently attacked state installations and the security establishment of Pakistan.

The security establishment`s media manipulation duly advocated the strategic depth policy by dividing the Taliban into good (the Afghan Taliban and the Pakistan militant militias believed to be active only in Afghanistan) and bad Taliban. Three crucial and simultaneous dynamics were ignored in this whole construct.

First, the growing ideological and non-state militaristic infrastructures in the settled and tribal belt of Pakistan started taking root in the socio-cultural and socio-economic dynamics of the communities around Pakistan. The militant organisations were able to develop mechanisms for social permeation of their extremist discourse winning a section of the population, especially the youth through the use of radios, websites, daily newspapers, periodicals, pamphlets, posters and banners besides the use of the electronic media. This phenomenon had helped gain them social control in certain communities.

The security establishment was looking the other way when all this was happening. The Tehrik-i-Nifaz-i-Shariat Mohammadi (TNSM) had brought about the whole Malakand division under its influence back in 1994 and the first-ever reported stoning to death event by the Taliban took place in 1998 in Orakzai Agency, which means that militant organisations already had social control of large areas in both the settled and tribal belt long before 9/11.

Second, the Salafi jihadis (Al Qaeda and its affiliates), Deobandi organisations, the Afghan Taliban and the Punjabi Taliban had been developing strategic alliances in addition to ideological alliances. Ideologically, they together brought about a shift in the religious authority of jihad thus allowing the militant militias to use religious discourse for social permeation and social control.

Strategically, they planned together to use their networking for strategic attacks on the states of Pakistan, Afghanistan and India achieving substantial strategic gains in the region. While the security establishment remained perpetually in a state of denial, the two widely reported events mentioned in the beginning substantiate the belief that the militant alliance has entered into a tactical alliance consummating alliance-building by militants active in the region.

Third, the security establishment of Pakistan conveniently neglected strategic interests and counter-espionage by the regional states of Iran, India, Afghanistan, China, Russia and Nato. This neglect led Pakistan to political and economic isolation in the region. The Pak-Afghan grand jirga and the Saarc forums were conveniently rendered useless. These could otherwise have provided suitable avenues for interaction and brainstorming among regional stakeholders. It seems the international jihadi network and militant militias in the region have proved to be strategically more audacious than the states of the region.

The writer is a researcher and analyst.

Khadim.2005@gmail.com

tp://www.dawn.com/2011/06/14/of-good-and-bad-taliban.htm
 

Mutee

FULL MEMBER
Dec 22, 2010
635
0
225
No they are not one not at all this is the worst piece of bs I have ever read bogus article the please check facts before writing things up Biggest lie of this century
 

Patriot

ELITE MEMBER
Sep 8, 2008
7,714
0
6,327
No they are not one not at all this is the worst piece of bs I have ever read bogus article the please check facts before writing things up Biggest lie of this century
So would you support a robber or a rapist as long as he does not rob your house or rape your mother?I completely agree with OP and as a matter of fact you can't distinguish between scums and anything who claims to be a taliban IMHO is scum.We should never allow our territory to be used against others.
 

Angad_NSA

FULL MEMBER
Jun 14, 2011
147
0
92
No they are not one not at all this is the worst piece of bs I have ever read bogus article the please check facts before writing things up Biggest lie of this century

That article is written by a Pakistani, a Muslim and in Pakistan media.

strange....and when foreign media says same thing, you say....conspiracy!!!!! :woot: :lol:
 

Avatar

SENIOR MEMBER
Mar 4, 2010
2,145
-7
1,357
Country
India
Location
Singapore
The only reason Pakistanis have been living in delusion land for so long despite knowing all Taliban are the same is because they want Taliban in Afghanistan for their own interests, irrespective of what Afghanistan wants. There have never been any condemnations from Afghan Taliban on the terror that TTP has been wrecking in Pakistan. The only way out of this mess for Pakistan is to undertake some sincere and diligent pest control before it's too late. That means every single radical organization must be shut down, and sincere efforts must be made to stabilize Afghanistan along with NATO. A lot of people here think that once the USA leaves the Taliban will your friendly neighbor. Infact, if NATO leaves Afghanistan without eliminating Taliban, then the Taliban will only become stronger with nobody to fight them. Soon they will start spreading into Pakistan (much worse than now) and it will be extremely difficult to stop them as Pakistan will be on it's own, and the economy can hardly support the annual budget.

wakey-wakey.png
 

wmdisinfo

FULL MEMBER
May 15, 2011
633
0
276
to the wrtiter of the article Mullah Omar calls pakistan majbooristan and after supporting US in invasion still Mullah Omar didnt come out and said to wage jihad against pakistan because they are someone who dosent eat grass they know what they do but honestly speaking pakistani taliban OR TTP is not one group like afghan taliban they are more then 33 gangs calling themselve taliban of pakistan why is haqqani network seperate?why are they not a TTP group?why are they directly allied to afghan taliban but not TTP? and another thing to note is that pakistan supports haqqani network while foreign powers support TTP covertly all the weapons TTP Got are indian made pakistan sumtime ago shot down an israeli drone another point to be noted what interst israel got in TTP?its a proxy war between pakistan, china and US,nato,israel india.i dont know how come people of pakistan till today didnt understand the game?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)


Top Bottom