Kayani wants India’s Afghan mission closed

[nForce]

well if you are talking like this then even we don't consider ajmal Pakistani...

What you personally think is totally irrelevant.The government of Pakistan has confirmed that Ajmal is a Pakistani,which is the truth.It is enough for all of us.Please stand corrected.

you have your own media sources but i guess you haven't visited afghanistan not even Tribal areas of Pakistan otherwise you will accept what i said... you consider TTP and Taliban as a one body, but in real both are different even Mullah Omer said this...and who told Mullah omer is not a Muslim, plz read carefully i told the leaders of TTP are not Muslim....

I can very well see that you are trying to push forward the Good Taliban-Bad Taliban or Afghan Taliban and Pakistani Taliban theory.Well even that theory is considered to be dead nowadays,considering the fact that it is based on considering someone bad if they kill innocent people of Pakistan and someone good if they kill innocent people Afghanistan.

BTW,a direct question to you,"Why do you consider the TTP leaders not to be Muslims?".I expect direct answers.

And if taliban are against humanity so tell me who told them to be inhuman. well before saying this plz remember kashmir once.

I think the Taliban were acting on their own will.They did not need anybody to tell them to ban internet in Afghanistan or conduct public killings.

now go back to the topic and wait for USA to depart.

So far as the topic is concerned,India has been in Afghanistan for peaceful purposes even during the Taliban regime.It is the biggest contributor in the region in terms of economic aid.The present projects undertaken by the Indian Mission in Afghanistan are also peaceful rebuilding projects like building dams.None of these are security threats to Pakistan.So Gen.Kayani does not need to get worried.

 

[Dance]

we strongly support General Kyanis stance of closing Indian counsulates on Pak Afghan border.

And who told u that Afghans like Indians?

They don't, thats the misconception indians have. They'll pretend to like them maybe to piss off Pakistanis or something but behind their backs they make fun of indians and look down upon them. Just go to any afghan forums and see how the refer to indians. They hate Pakistanis but totally look down on indians.

 

[Guynextdoor]

Would you please care to elaborate the advantages to US for having India involved in Afghanistan?

I mean the 1 billion USD they paid is peanuts compared to what they can give themselves. Plus India is not even a neighbor.

It's pretty clear that India wanted to be in Afghanistan to encircle Pakistan, i mean Pakistan had to handle the Afghan refuge crisis in 1980s not India. In any case, whether India likes it or not, their party is going to be over the moment NATO pulls out.

That's why USA no longer gives a shyt.

Well USA can give 100 B, India can give 1 B and pakistan can hardly give 10M (probably borrow from afghanistan). Nothing positive but always ready to do miscief. Have you ever noticed how both India & Afghanistan hate you? We don't want you there, so why don't you just leave?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Well USA can give 100 B, India can give 1 B and pakistan can hardly give 10M (probably borrow from afghanistan). Nothing positive but always ready to do miscief. Have you ever noticed how both India & Afghanistan hate you? We don't want you there, so why don't you just leave?

Not '10 million'.

http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...-investment-afghanistan-hits-500-million.html

Afghanistan's psychotic hatred of Pakistan, as evidenced by their refusal to accept Pakistan in 1947, and support for Baluch and Pashutn insurgencies in Pakistan, and claims to Pakistani territory despite having already agreed to demarcate the border in the Durand Agreement, are really a reflection of the problems in the psyche of some Afghans and the Afghan government.

Take a chill pill and brush up on events before spouting off next time.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

But as the WikiLeaks material demonstrates, their heavy-handed involvement is now obvious at all levels,'' the Canadian diplomat said.

The wikileaks intelligence reports about Pakistan have largely been discredited as unsubstantiated, so to base conclusions on those reports only reflects upon the desperation and intellectual dishonesty of the commentators.

Secondly, WRT the claims of 'Gen. Kiyani wants consulates closed', what exactly is that based on? I certainly have not heard either the GoP, DG ISI Pasha or COAS Kiyani offer any such opinion. So what is this based on?

 

[SEAL]

If USA can attack other countries to protect its interests why not Pakistan? General Kayani is protecting Pakistani interests thats it.

 

[Ras]

Afghanistan is only a land of Pathans and no one else can survive there, not russians, not amercians and when amercians will leave afghanistan then it would be difficult for indians to stay there too. Afghanistan always proves to be a grave of those who tries to capture it......

Keep one thing in mind these taliban were once trained by ISI and financed by CIA. It shows the level of training they have.

60% of Afghanistan is made up of non-pusthoons.

 

[gurjot]

If USA can attack other countries to protect its interests why not Pakistan? General Kayani is protecting Pakistani interests thats it.

he shud protect his interst in pak.y afghanistan???????

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

he shud protect his interst in pak.y afghanistan???????

Isn't the countering of elements within Afghanistan (local and external) destabilizing Pakistan, considered protecting Pakistani interests?

 

[Vinod2070]

Isn't the countering of elements within Afghanistan (local and external) destabilizing Pakistan, considered protecting Pakistani interests?

Yes, but it should be done diplomatically, as one country dealing with another independent country. Pakistan should realize the limits of it's influence and the power that it has over Afghanistan. Also do some introspection as to why Afghans have the image of Pakistan that they do.

Not realizing those limitations or refusing to accept them is the cause of much of the problem. Yes, Afghanistan will be naturally hostile to Pakistan and yes, there is nothing you can do about it in the long run except trying to contain that hostility.

 

[gurjot]

Isn't the countering of elements within Afghanistan (local and external) destabilizing Pakistan, considered protecting Pakistani interests?

if india get out frm afghanistan then whole terror frm afghan will be shifted towards india.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Yes, but it should be done diplomatically, as one country dealing with another independent country. Pakistan should realize the limits of it's influence and the power that it has over Afghanistan. Also do some introspection as to why Afghans have the image of Pakistan that they do.

See post 35 http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...ia-s-afghan-mission-closed-3.html#post1051856

It is the Afghans that have to introspect and decide to live in peace with Pakistan and respect its territorial integrity and sovereignty, which they steadfastly refused to do under various regimes in the past. When a nation takes a position such as the one taken by Afghanistan towards Pakistan historically, it is openly inviting 'intervention'.

Not realizing those limitations or refusing to accept them is the cause of much of the problem. Yes, Afghanistan will be naturally hostile to Pakistan and yes, there is nothing you can do about it in the long run except trying to contain that hostility.

Exactly, you just countered your own argument - so long as Afghanistan is hostile to Pakistan and refuses to change its policies towards Pakistan, Pakistan will do whatever it needs to do to prevent or minimize threats to Pakistan from Afghanistan. Pakistani intervention in Afghanistan has been precisely because of the policies emanating out of Kabul, and Afghan instability that threatened Pakistan - only the Afghans can fix that, and they cannot expect Pakistan to sit by while their nation openly claims Pakistani territory (with no internationally recognized standing to their claim).

---------- Post added at 03:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:31 PM ----------

if india get out frm afghanistan then whole terror frm afghan will be shifted towards india.

That is a fear mongering one liner with nothing to justify it.

 

[Vinod2070]

See post 35 http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...ia-s-afghan-mission-closed-3.html#post1051856

It is the Afghans that have to introspect and decide to live in peace with Pakistan and respect its territorial integrity and sovereignty, which they steadfastly refused to do under various regimes in the past. When a nation takes a position such as the one taken by Afghanistan towards Pakistan historically, it is openly inviting 'intervention'.

Well, we have discussed this earlier at another place. Afghanistan may have reasons to feel that a substantial part of it's territory and people (the Pushtuns are called Afghans for a reason) are with Pakistan now. You may not agree and you need to live with that difference of thought.

Its like you not being able to stomach that Kashmir is with India while it has a Muslim majority. Doesn't mean you are necessarily inviting "intervention" as long as there is no war going on.

Exactly, you just countered your own argument - so long as Afghanistan is hostile to Pakistan and refuses to change its policies towards Pakistan, Pakistan will do whatever it needs to do to prevent or minimize threats to Pakistan from Afghanistan. Pakistani intervention in Afghanistan has been precisely because of the policies emanating out of Kabul, and Afghan instability that threatened Pakistan - only the Afghans can fix that, and they cannot expect Pakistan to sit by while their nation openly claims Pakistani territory (with no internationally recognized standing to their claim).

The trouble is, what Pakistan is doing is not minimizing the threats.

OK, some king signed a treaty with Britishers when Britishers were the biggest empire in the world. What do you expect them to do now when they feel that the treaty is no longer not right for them?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Well, we have discussed this earlier at another place. Afghanistan may have reasons to feel that a substantial part of it's territory and people (the Pushtuns are called Afghans for a reason) are with Pakistan now. You may not agree and you need to live with that difference of thought.

More Pashtun than the entire population of Afghanistan live in Pakistan and are well integrated into every section of society and government, the only reasonable case for 'unification of the Pashtun' ends up with the larger population integrating the smaller, and under that rationale it is Afghanistan that becomes part of Pakistan.

We can live with a 'difference of opinion', Pakistan cannot live with a nation that actively claims its territory with no international basis to its claims, and actively seeks to destabilize Pakistan (support for Baluch and Pashtun insurgents in the past, and allegedly currently as well).

If the Afghan's feel they have a claim and a 'difference of opinion' then they need to take their case to the UN or ICJ and see where it takes them, and not attempt to claim Pakistani territory through subterfuge and destabilization.

Its like you not being able to stomach that Kashmir is with India while it has a Muslim majority. Doesn't mean you are necessarily inviting "intervention" as long as there is no war going on.

The disputed status of J&K has been validated through the UNSC resolutions and Pakistan has been accepted as a party to the dispute. Our position on J&K has nothing in common with the Afghan position.

The trouble is, what Pakistan is doing is not minimizing the threats.

Why, what are we doing? The GoP and PA have ruled out support for the Taliban, so what exactly are we doing? Appears to me that we are engaging with Karzai and we wish for the GoA to end its active promotion of an anti-Pakistan agenda and inculcation of anti-Pakistan hatred amongst its populace through its media and government (see the M Semple piece on this).

OK, some king signed a treaty with Britishers when Britishers were the biggest empire in the world. What do you expect them to do now when they feel that the treaty is no longer not right for them?

Tough cookies - a treaty and agreement remains valid regardless of whether agreed to by those who follow. The Afghans can cuss out their King for doing so, but what is done is done, and is legally valid, and the Afghan State is obligated to honor its international obligations by honoring the Durand Agreement. If it does not agree with the validity of the DA, it should take it to the UN or ICJ and hope for a favorable ruling.

 

[Tshering22]

Well, we have discussed this earlier at another place. Afghanistan may have reasons to feel that a substantial part of it's territory and people (the Pushtuns are called Afghans for a reason) are with Pakistan now. You may not agree and you need to live with that difference of thought.

Its like you not being able to stomach that Kashmir is with India while it has a Muslim majority. Doesn't mean you are necessarily inviting "intervention" as long as there is no war going on.



The trouble is, what Pakistan is doing is not minimizing the threats.

OK, some king signed a treaty with Britishers when Britishers were the biggest empire in the world. What do you expect them to do now when they feel that the treaty is no longer not right for them?

The point is, Pakistan wants some leverage over Afghanistan when it is already embattled in the same mess that Afghans are in right now. I don't see how he can ask for us to move our missions there without any evident links of us harming Pakistani territory.

I know you all would say we're promoting terror in your sensitive regions. But the evidence of that is to be provided to the world community for them to see and officially declare us as "meddlesome".

Kayani can ask for all he wants and the world itself at this time from USA or others, but it all depends on the other party on what he can actually give and to what extent the deal would benefit him (read here US and NATO). They have nothing to gain from asking us to get out or pressure Afghan government in doing it.