What's new

Charge d’ Affairs of Pakistan, Ambassador Ubaid Nizamani targeted by assassination attempt in Kabul - Dec 2022

PanzerKiel

MILITARY PROFESSIONAL
Dec 5, 2006
3,904
187
25,337
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Unconfirmed Source Update;

Turkmen or Uzbek ethnicity terrorists attacked Pakistan’s Embassy in Kabul fired over 100 rounds of ammunition and 7 sniper shots into the embassy. Another (3rd) accomplice of the attacker was arrested today. Suspect is currently believed to be a hired hitman/mercenary. Was occupying a room at the 8th floor of a commercial building close to the Pakistani embassy compound. Terrorist used the building to target Pakistani top diplomat. To escape, a rappelling set-up was placed side of the building but fortunately, captured today by IEA.

Terrorist was in possession of 3 firearms that include a modified AK-47 assault rifle, a long range automatic rifle, a sniper gun, 5 x hand grenades, a wifi camera and communications equipment. Suspect is being interrogated at an unknown location by IEA. It is believed that a foreign organisation is involved in the plot to target Pakistani diplomat in Kabul, Afg.​

The charge de affairs and his guard have since been evacuated to Pakistan.

1670093493643.png

The SSG guy who thwarted the attack.
 
Last edited:

Trango Towers

ELITE MEMBER
Oct 29, 2016
20,410
-18
24,460
Country
Pakistan
Location
United Kingdom
Unconfirmed Source Update;

Turkmen or Uzbek ethnicity terrorists attacked Pakistan’s Embassy in Kabul fired over 100 rounds of ammunition and 7 sniper shots into the embassy. Another (3rd) accomplice of the attacker was arrested today. Suspect is currently believed to be a hired hitman/mercenary. Was occupying a room at the 8th floor of a commercial building close to the Pakistani embassy compound. Terrorist used the building to target Pakistani top diplomat. To escape, a rappelling set-up was placed side of the building but fortunately, captured today by IEA.

Terrorist was in possession of 3 firearms that include a modified AK-47 assault rifle, a long range automatic rifle, a sniper gun, 5 x hand grenades, a wifi camera and communications equipment. Suspect is being interrogated at an unknown location by IEA. It is believed that a foreign organisation is involved in the plot to target Pakistani diplomat in Kabul, Afg.​

The charge de affairs and his guard have since been evacuated to Pakistan.
Wonder if it's India
 

LeGenD

MODERATOR
Aug 28, 2006
13,816
132
17,534
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
The whole double game started b/c US refused to listen to our concerns & started installing anti-pak, pro-india leaders. They had their own agenda. THAT's the root cause. Army saw this, realized they couldn't trust the Americans & decided to help the Taliban. US in turn supported TTP & Baloch separatists.

Those 7 demands were accepted b/c Musharraf was overly eager to present himself as a partner in the WoT farce in order to legitimize his rule. A constant theme throughout his rule.

The ROOT cause of this whole drama was the Americans. Establishment's main goal therefore was to kick out the US and the OPENLY hostile afghan regime. Much easier to stabilize the region when the main cause of instability & an openly hostile gov is not there. The only issue after 2009 was a face-saving exit via negotiations b/w Taliban & the puppet gov. But in the end, only they themselves negotiated with Taliban & left in a hurry which meant that there was still a big mess to resolve.



They're not pleased b/c we turned against them in the beginning. Hard to trust when we've already helped remove them once, regardless of our own circumstances. Trust can be rebuilt with the Afghan ppl but it's a decades long project which PDFers don't have the patience for.



They were never going to be pleased either way. However, the US isn't investing b/c they're mad at us. It's our own shitty economic policies that keeps private investors away.

Btw, let's stop pretending that they they're pissed off about Afghanistan. The real stick in our relations is China.



Baloch separatists are mainly an Iran-based problem now not Afg.



They always did :lol:. They've always been soft on India compared to us. They didn't even want Pakistan to exist in the beginning. They wanted a united India.



They can try but if the trust deficit b/w us & Taliban is any indication they aren't going to get too far.



There's a system. It's not perfect but there is one. Incompetent politicians & adventurous generals prevent us from extracting full benefits of it.



You wanted strategic depth on day 1 of US withdrawal or something?

Let's go back to the start to understand what happened. Bush administration did NOT dispatch US Army but used Northern Alliance to topple Afghan Taliban. But Bush administration decided to create transitional government and chose Hamid Karzai to take charge of it in 2002.

The establishment might have reservations about rule of Northern Alliance but accepted transitional government in Afghanistan with Karzai at its helm in 2002.

Do you know that Karzai was living in Quetta before the war? He was a well-known figure in diplomatic circles of Pakistan and Afghanistan because of his political interests. Both CIA and ISI were in touch with him as well.


Karzai was also willing to negotiate with Afghan Taliban for bringing them to the fold. But Pakistan could be more persuasive than him.

Concerns do NOT matter.

What matters is that WHO is giving WHAT type of assurances to the Other Party, and is it possible to live up to given assurances?

Recheck your own statement:

"Those 7 demands were accepted b/c Musharraf was overly eager to present himself as a partner in the WoT farce in order to legitimize his rule. A constant theme throughout his rule."

You came close to identifying a part of the problem. Pervez Musharraf was COAS and undisputed leader of the establishment and Pakistan (at large) back then. It was logical for the Other Party to take his words, decisions, and assurances at face value.

Musharraf's decision to join War On Terror is NOT the point of contention here. This was correct decision and it was necessary to dismantle Al-Qaeda Network for its global crimes.

The point of contention is that American demands were unconditionally accepted without making it clear to them that Pakistan (at large) does not find it practical to dismantle Afghan Taliban. This led to a mismatch of expectations between US and Pakistan for HOW to reshape political landscape of Afghanistan from the get go.

Is it OK to "agree" with demands of the Other Party but proceed to do something else to placate domestic voices? This is controversial approach and it has wider consequences - something that Pakistan is finding out in the present.

Afghan Taliban managed to regroup in 2004 and conducted large-scale operations across Afghanistan in a major show of force in 2006. But US-led forces managed to rout Afghan Taliban from various locations in return. Afghan Taliban now realized that it was not practical to challenge US-led forces out in the open so they decided to sabotage US-backed Afghan government from now on.

TTP emerged in 2007 and called for Pakistan Army to withdraw from Tribal Areas. Pakistan's revisited establishment (PPP-led government + President Musharraf + COAS Pervez A. Kayani) made two separate attempts to negotiate with TTP for a peaceful settlement in 2007 and 2008 but both attempts failed.

Pakistan Army conducted its 1st military operation against TTP in 2009.


Obama administration ordered hit on TTP's fearsome founding father Baitullah Mehsud in 2009 in support of Pakistan's military operation.


Obama administration also declared TTP a terrorist organization in 2010 for its links with Al-Qaeda Network.

But Pakistani leadership made yet another attempt to negotiate with TTP for a peaceful settlement in 2011.

Then another in 2013.

Obama administration was putting pressure on Pakistan to go hard on TTP and its allies instead. Obama administration also ordered hit on TTP's then chief Hakimullah Mehsud in 2013. But what was the reaction to this move?


Yet another in 2014.

But Pakistan Army conducted its 2nd operation against TTP later in 2014. Credit goes to COAS Raheel Sharif for this move.

But much had changed in Afghanistan by then. Obama administration had withdrawn the bulk of NATO forces from Afghanistan, and Ashraf Ghani was in power.

Even Ghani wanted to build rapport with Pakistan but it didn't work out for him.

---

See above.

I understand that Bush administration was hellbent on punishing Afghan Taliban for supporting Al-Qaeda Network. It did not pay heed to following proposal:


It was worth a try as PLAN A to see if it works.

I do not believe that the war could be averted though. Afghan Taliban were a stubborn bunch and refused to entertain Musharraf's proposal to make a deal with US. They thought that they could fight US out in the open if it comes down to it. They had to pay a hefty price to realize how serious US was about dismantling Al-Qaeda Network and they have to make a deal with US to come back no matter what.

My contention is that the establishment should have told Americans in very clear terms that it is not practical to dismantle Afghan Taliban and Pakistan cannot do much in this regard either because the entire Pashtun belt is involved in this matter.

Simply stating that there is no military solution to problems in Afghanistan was not a convincing rationale IMHO.

The establishment thought that it could keep its support for Afghan Taliban under the wraps? No, it could not. This approach caused more harm than good.

Now both Afghan Taliban and US treat Pakistan with indifference.

Afghan Taliban have conveyed to Pakistan that TTP is Pakistan's problem.

US did not offer much to ex-COAS Qamar J. Bajwa either when he visited US and spent a week there. Joe Biden refused to meet him. US offered to provide necessary parts for maintaining F-16s at most.

---

See above.

But yes, it will not be easy to win over Afghans. Not anytime soon.

---

Political environment makes lot of difference.

---

US does have problems with China TBH.

US also understands that Pakistan is very close to China and this relationship is decades in the making.

US does not expects much from Pakistan but to dial down Anti-Americanism and be mindful of its global interests.

Pakistan should welcome investments from both countries and avoid Camp Politics much like India in times of the Cold War. This will be good enough.

---

Perhaps.

---

Yes, US decides its options on long-term basis. US could see much potential in India from the start.

Never heard of US not accepting Pakistan's existence. Afghanistan was the only country in the world to have problems with Pakistan's existence.

---

India has hard cash and capacity to develop Afghanistan if it comes down to it. This is sufficient to build rapport with Afghans.

Some pointers:




Well?

WE must understand that Afghanistan is a sovereign country and can make its own decisions. There is a limit to what can be dictated to it.

---

Pakistan's Civil - Military disconnect is apparent to all. This is due to incompetent politicians and adventurous generals as you put.

Nevertheless, Pakistan should reflect on how it handled the War On Terror saga and learn from it.

Blameshifting should be dialed down. Do point out mistakes of others but do not make excuses for your own.

Do not make promises that cannot be upheld.

Do not play double games with a superpower. Because it will return the favor at some point.

Do not keep Public in the dark. Believe in it.

Too much transparency to expect, I know.

---

LOL
 

Goritoes

SENIOR MEMBER
Jan 20, 2021
5,569
-1
8,604
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
True but it's generally due to their culture, I think the next generation raised in diverse areas won't be as problematic as the the initial migrants.

Even during Pakistan's independence not every ethnicity generally was at the same point of development so it will take time for them to catch up.

But what we did to Bangladesh is the biggest blunder in history
Not Gonna lie but I have little to no hope for Pakistani Pashtoons, they are more loyal to Afghans and Afghanistan than Pakistan and Pakistanis, and we saw that time and time again with their behavior.
 

PakCan

FULL MEMBER
Aug 18, 2014
748
0
1,316
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
Unconfirmed Source Update;

Turkmen or Uzbek ethnicity terrorists attacked Pakistan’s Embassy in Kabul fired over 100 rounds of ammunition and 7 sniper shots into the embassy. Another (3rd) accomplice of the attacker was arrested today. Suspect is currently believed to be a hired hitman/mercenary. Was occupying a room at the 8th floor of a commercial building close to the Pakistani embassy compound. Terrorist used the building to target Pakistani top diplomat. To escape, a rappelling set-up was placed side of the building but fortunately, captured today by IEA.

Terrorist was in possession of 3 firearms that include a modified AK-47 assault rifle, a long range automatic rifle, a sniper gun, 5 x hand grenades, a wifi camera and communications equipment. Suspect is being interrogated at an unknown location by IEA. It is believed that a foreign organisation is involved in the plot to target Pakistani diplomat in Kabul, Afg.​

The charge de affairs and his guard have since been evacuated to Pakistan.

View attachment 902671
The SSG guy who thwarted the attack.

I think we can all take a wild guess who is behind this. I hope our new COAS can realign our military and ISI focus back to our real enemies. I hope we return the favour.
 

Sayfullah

SENIOR MEMBER
Sep 10, 2020
2,180
8
4,068
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
I disagree with your final statement, we are betting on the strongest horse but it's not the right horse

If you truly want to secure the Western border - you should try to put a Tajik/Hazara government in power that won't have any real personal incentive to be stubborn about the Durrand line.

But it's very difficult because it seems the Pashtuns are very dominant in Afghanistan

Some methods could be by riling up historical grudges, emphasising on persecution based on ethnicity, and promising them hegemony. In return of course you support them and they accept the border demand. We could utilise any Hazaras/Tajiks already inside Pakistan, build networks in Afghans, conquer it part by part. They can also implement Sharia law to appease the Islamists. Arm them to tackle insurgency, and their government might be more open to international support.

But this will probably require a lot of resources we don't have, and probably won't be possible as America did just fail.
Any Hazara/Tajik government would be internationally recognized and their ministers won’t have their families, businesses and homes in Pakistan. We would have next to no leverage over them. This is if they even survive cuz Pashtuns of Afghanistan won’t let them. And the Pashtuns on our side would see Pakistans relations with any Pashtun hostile afghan government in a negative view. Arming them would be a major boost to Pashtunistan sentiment in Pakistan.
Any internationally recognized government in Afghanistan with international allies and no business in Pakistan would be a major headache for us no matter what ethnicity they belong to. With such government in power in Afghanistan we wouldn’t be able to do strikes or get anyone killed in Afghanistan without worldwide backlash.
 

Sayfullah

SENIOR MEMBER
Sep 10, 2020
2,180
8
4,068
Country
Pakistan
Location
Canada
Listen, bro. There is a lot to unpack in this theme. And you will not like some of the details.

The establishment was hedging its bets on Afghan Taliban, right? Why was this intent not conveyed to US openly? Why the establishment granted US access to Afghanistan without presenting (any) terms and conditions including talks about what US will do to protect regional interests of Pakistan in exchange?

Then American ambassador Wendy Chamberlain presented a list of seven demands to the establishment and they were all accepted blindly without documentation and analysis of what Pakistan could realistically do for US.

Afghan Taliban were allowed to regroup and receive medical treatments in Pakistan.

US-backed Afghan government was at war with Afghan Taliban and this was the root cause of Pak-Afghan tensions throughout.

India made inroads into Afghanistan via Iran and took advantage of Pak-Afghan tensions to do its bidding.

US was focused on dismantling Al-Qaeda Network in the region (Primary Target), but also assassinated top leaders of TTP to disrupt its cohesion to make it easier for Pakistan security forces to fight it. US provided cash, numerous weapons systems, and guidance to Pakistan for how to improve security of its nuclear infrastructure as well.

The establishment was lacking in planning for how to negotiate its part in the War On Terror saga.

Pakistani commoners were made to believe in narrative(s) like "aalmi saazish" to keep them distracted on the other hand.

US could see the obvious, settled for an alternative solution (for itself), and bailed.

The outcome?

Afghan Taliban = not pleased = not touching TTP

US = not pleased = not offering much to Pakistan

BLA continues to find space in Afghanistan and launch attacks in Pakistan.

TTP continues to find space in Afghanistan and launch attacks in Pakistan.

Afghanistan = economic crisis

Pakistan = economic crisis

But Khan (handsome) was conveniently blamed for damaging US - Pak relations in the end.

US now see India in much more favorable light.

India can establish contacts with Afghan Taliban as well.

It shows that Pakistan has no system and national coherence to manage its Foreign affairs. The establishment gets to decide what to do and does not believe in Transparency and Civic Engagement to manage issues of national interest.

So much for strategic depth.
This argument is considering usa was sincere in the first place. We know the realities of usa and how sincere they were.
We could have used usa better while it was stuck in Afghanistan. That I agree. But us presence in Afghanistan and a pro US regime in kabul was always gonna be a headache for us and something that must be removed.
With Taliban it’s ttp that’s the threat.
With a pro US, internationally recognized regime with international allies it would have still supported ttp or Pashtunistan elements like the many previous afghan regimes have.
Difference is we can bully Taliban into our demands cuz the world hates them too.
An officially recognized regime in Afghanistan would mean now we’re officially sandwiched between 3 powerful foes (Iran, Afghanistan, India). We can’t bomb them with fighters jets or send militants to teach them.

It’s like why isr*el prefers hostile militants as its neighbours rather than a power internationally recognized hostile regime

Unconfirmed Source Update;

Turkmen or Uzbek ethnicity terrorists attacked Pakistan’s Embassy in Kabul fired over 100 rounds of ammunition and 7 sniper shots into the embassy. Another (3rd) accomplice of the attacker was arrested today. Suspect is currently believed to be a hired hitman/mercenary. Was occupying a room at the 8th floor of a commercial building close to the Pakistani embassy compound. Terrorist used the building to target Pakistani top diplomat. To escape, a rappelling set-up was placed side of the building but fortunately, captured today by IEA.

Terrorist was in possession of 3 firearms that include a modified AK-47 assault rifle, a long range automatic rifle, a sniper gun, 5 x hand grenades, a wifi camera and communications equipment. Suspect is being interrogated at an unknown location by IEA. It is believed that a foreign organisation is involved in the plot to target Pakistani diplomat in Kabul, Afg.​

The charge de affairs and his guard have since been evacuated to Pakistan.

View attachment 902671
The SSG guy who thwarted the attack.

Wonder if it's India

Daesh (ISKP) claimed responsibility. Who else can it be other than india?
 

Bleek

SENIOR MEMBER
Dec 21, 2021
4,296
4
5,465
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
Any Hazara/Tajik government would be internationally recognized and their ministers won’t have their families, businesses and homes in Pakistan. We would have next to no leverage over them. This is if they even survive cuz Pashtuns of Afghanistan won’t let them. And the Pashtuns on our side would see Pakistans relations with any Pashtun hostile afghan government in a negative view. Arming them would be a major boost to Pashtunistan sentiment in Pakistan.
Any internationally recognized government in Afghanistan with international allies and no business in Pakistan would be a major headache for us no matter what ethnicity they belong to. With such government in power in Afghanistan we wouldn’t be able to do strikes or get anyone killed in Afghanistan without worldwide backlash.
The way I see it, it's way easier to make a Hazara/Tajik loyal to you if you support them from the beginning because they won't care about the Durrand line as much as Pashtuns do.

Of course there's the chance of backstabbing happening after they are in power.

Maybe we should support a group like this just temporarily at certain times to "pressure" the Afghan Taliban and destabilise their rule.

It just seems like we are in a never-ending game of cat and mouse.

An officially recognized regime in Afghanistan would mean now we’re officially sandwiched between 3 powerful foes (Iran, Afghanistan, India). We can’t bomb them with fighters jets or send militants to teach them.
India alone is an already times many larger foe than us and now we have more piling up, it's not looking good. In any serious conflict, what are the chances of using nukes on the other two?

I wonder what the establishment's view of Iran is? Never really anything about it on the media but all the Baloch militants never mention anything about Iranian Balochistan even though there were many recent massacres.
 
Last edited:

EternalMortal

FULL MEMBER
Jun 30, 2021
438
-1
634
Country
Pakistan
Location
Ireland
Let's go back to the start to understand what happened. Bush administration did NOT dispatch US Army but used Northern Alliance to topple Afghan Taliban. But Bush administration decided to create transitional government and chose Hamid Karzai to take charge of it in 2002.

The establishment might have reservations about rule of Northern Alliance but accepted transitional government in Afghanistan with Karzai at its helm in 2002.

Do you know that Karzai was living in Quetta before the war? He was a well-known figure in diplomatic circles of Pakistan and Afghanistan because of his political interests. Both CIA and ISI were in touch with him as well.

Karzai was also willing to negotiate with Afghan Taliban for bringing them to the fold. But Pakistan could be more persuasive than him.

Concerns do NOT matter.

Concerns DO matter. It's why Musharraf backed the afghan taliban in the 1st place. He wanted leverage & a backup after seeing NA leaders being put into power. Forget Karzai, it was the NA that was actually in power at the time, as you know.

Recheck your own statement:

"Those 7 demands were accepted b/c Musharraf was overly eager to present himself as a partner in the WoT farce in order to legitimize his rule. A constant theme throughout his rule."

You came close to identifying a part of the problem. Pervez Musharraf was COAS and undisputed leader of the establishment and Pakistan (at large) back then. It was logical for the Other Party to take his words, decisions, and assurances at face value.

Musharraf's decision to join War On Terror is NOT the point of contention here. This was correct decision and it was necessary to dismantle Al-Qaeda Network for its global crimes.

The point of contention is that American demands were unconditionally accepted without making it clear to them that Pakistan (at large) does not find it practical to dismantle Afghan Taliban. This led to a mismatch of expectations between US and Pakistan for HOW to reshape political landscape of Afghanistan from the get go.

That's what I said...No one here denying his decision to join WoT was correct. Which is why I said "regardless of our own circumstances" in previous comment about Taliban not trusting us.

My contention is that the establishment should have told Americans in very clear terms that it is not practical to dismantle Afghan Taliban and Pakistan cannot do much in this regard either because the entire Pashtun belt is involved in this matter.

Simply stating that there is no military solution to problems in Afghanistan was not a convincing rationale IMHO.

The establishment thought that it could keep its support for Afghan Taliban under the wraps? No, it could not. This approach caused more harm than good.

Now both Afghan Taliban and US treat Pakistan with indifference.

Afghan Taliban have conveyed to Pakistan that TTP is Pakistan's problem.

Could Musharraf have tried harder? Likely, yes. But this goes back to his attitude of rolling over & accepting their every demand. It's a character problem.

US does not expects much from Pakistan but to dial down Anti-Americanism and be mindful of its global interests.

Let's get this straight. Imran Khan has never been "anti-American." He opposed their WoT, drone strikes & bases. You should note, however, that he has CONSISTENTLY said he wants a good relationship with the US based on mutual respect. Americans must have their own definition of "anti-americanism". Perhaps they confuse sycophancy with pro-americanism?

Never heard of US not accepting Pakistan's existence. Afghanistan was the only country in the world to have problems with Pakistan's existence.

Look it up. They wanted a united india b/w it would be stronger & better able to use as a counter to USSR & China. That being said they did face reality & they're probably thanking themselves for it, considering they need a check on india as well plus all the work we've done for them.

India has hard cash and capacity to develop Afghanistan if it comes down to it. This is sufficient to build rapport with Afghans.

Some pointers:

Well?

WE must understand that Afghanistan is a sovereign country and can make its own decisions. There is a limit to what can be dictated to it.

Well, what? It's simply economic cooperation. We're doing trade with them as well. Pakistan has never opposed Afg's right trade with anyone. What we have opposed is Afg gov allying with India for anti-pak activities.

Trade is NEITHER trust nor friendship nor even an alliance. Please understand this.

Pakistan's Civil - Military disconnect is apparent to all. This is due to incompetent politicians and adventurous generals as you put.

Nevertheless, Pakistan should reflect on how it handled the War On Terror saga and learn from it.

Blameshifting should be dialed down. Do point out mistakes of others but do not make excuses for your own.

Do not make promises that cannot be upheld.

Do not play double games with a superpower. Because it will return the favor at some point.

Do not keep Public in the dark. Believe in it.

Too much transparency to expect, I know.

Unfortunately, transparency can only happen once the people are allowed to rule themselves. We've yet to see whether establishment will relent on their present misadventure.
 
Last edited:

ghazi52

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Mar 21, 2007
89,804
98
145,483
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
,..,.,.
Get well soon #Hero, the nation is proud of you.

Special Service Group (SSG) Commando Muhammad Israr recovers in hospital after receiving multiple bullet wounds while protecting Pakistan’s Head of Mission in Kabul.


1670245672969.png
 

ghazi52

PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST
Mar 21, 2007
89,804
98
145,483
Country
Pakistan
Location
United States
,..,
being under fire. Israr Muhammad is an operative of the Pakistan Army’s Special Services Group (SSG) from the 6th Commando Battalion (‘Al-Samsaam’) and was deployed to Afghanistan on personal protection duties for the Pakistani Head of Mission in Kabul.
He is currently under medical care in CMH Peshawar after being airlifted to Pakistan.

He joined the SSG in July 2018. The soldier’s extremely brave acts of valour under fire saved the ambassador’s life and prevented a major terrorist act.

His actions are extreme admirable and befitting of the legacy and honour that the SSG is known for.
 

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


Top Bottom