Mehsud Sacked

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

Education has nothing to do with it. A lack of common sense has everything to do with it. There is no reason to provide evidence. Looking at the amount of destruction that may come their way---they needed to look at the welfare of their children, kith and kin. The concept of sanctuary goes only so far.

But pox on those fundamentals for bringing so much destruction upon the people who were already crushed for the last 3 decades. Question to be asked is how can a guest bring so much misery to these poor people who have nothing left in this world except for their miserable lives.


Agno---I have great respect for you for making that statement

"My mother once justified a decision of hers that I considered "ethnically biased" (to put it nicely) by resorting to the argument of "its our culture". My answer to her at the time was that if "culture" demands something that so obviously negates basic human dignity, then "culture" must change".

If pakhtunwali is so destructive to muslims---caused so much death and destruction to the populace, then this practise needs to change---.

 

[S-2]

"Since 2001, there had been no Pakistani government support of the Taliban through any supply lines."

Wrong. That's not what I said. Read more closely, please. "established" and "government" aren't one and the same.

"They were once allies of NATO when the Soviets had invaded."

Hardly. Their ideological predecessors (the mujahideen), however, were.

"Much like Pakistan's relationship with the US which has it's ups and downs."

More ups than downs, though the comparison is irrelevant as your analogy began with a significant historical inaccuracy.

"Rubbish. Pakistan is interested in a stable Afghanistan so it can trade with central asia through it. That is the main reason. Stability. Strategic depth is just a bonus."

Rubbish yet you acknowledge a "bonus" in the same paragraph. You don't need proxy alliances to safely trade with Kazakhstan. It runs far deeper. You dissemble my "rubbish". That says much.

"Why should Pakistan abandon such an ambition? The Pashtuns ARE Pakistan's allies. The Northern Alliance ARE India's allies. Why do you think Pakistan should side with the Northern Alliance?"

Maintaining that central asian commerce, eh? That didn't take much for you to come clean. Pashtuns? So you are pleased that Karzai has remained President since late 2001?

Meddlesome in the sovereign affairs of another nation. The democratic process is long. Implemented w/ proper checks and balances, it is self-correcting through the voting populace who reject bad policies by rejecting candidates. Takes time but works.

Any nation that fosters a facade of "one man, one vote, one time" is failing to avail itself of the self-correcting quality so evident in western discourse and politics. Voted in and out is commonplace. When as commonplace in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the world shall breathe easier.

Your comments make clear that you favor the support of taliban to de-stabilize Afghanistan. That should, if actualized once more, resolve the Durand Line.

Or not.

It's always all India, all the time. India is always all money, all the time. Big difference in direction and velocity.

 

[Energon]

Hi,

Education has nothing to do with it. A lack of common sense has everything to do with it. There is no reason to provide evidence. Looking at the amount of destruction that may come their way---they needed to look at the welfare of their children, kith and kin. The concept of sanctuary goes only so far.

I totally get your point here, but in this case the both of us would be projecting our thought process on them. The tribal inhabitants of these areas are still living in the middle ages and maintain a psychological make up that has very little in common with most of humanity today. So even something as rudimentary as 'common sense' for the sake of self preservation, which we take for granted does not hold true here. In their world clan or religious inspired loyalties mean a lot more than their own lives or that of their children and loved ones.

I remember having a conversation with a classmate of mine who was a former officer in the US armed forces and an ardent supporter of carpet bombing this entire region. His argument was that if they saw the B-52s and Apache longbows swooping in, it would immediately change their hearts and minds; to which my response was, if the Tupulovs and the Hinds didn't do the job, it is unlikely we will succeed this time around using the same strategy.

 

[roadrunner]

Hi,

Education has nothing to do with it. A lack of common sense has everything to do with it.

For me, education and common sense are intertwined. To make sensible decisions you need to be educated.

There is no reason to provide evidence. Looking at the amount of destruction that may come their way---they needed to look at the welfare of their children, kith and kin. The concept of sanctuary goes only so far.

That's your opinion. Some people will readily hand over $5 to a mugger who's about to attack them, some people will not. What's the difference between the two - one's a coward, the other is braver. Yes, they did wreak destruction, and personally I'd have favoured them handing him over without any evidence, but the Taliban are basically poor people that only have their word. They're honest, if a little dumb imo (which comes from a lack of education).

But pox on those fundamentals for bringing so much destruction upon the people who were already crushed for the last 3 decades. Question to be asked is how can a guest bring so much misery to these poor people who have nothing left in this world except for their miserable lives.

Misery is exactly what makes them the way they are. Tough, hardened, and have had it up to their necks in foreign interference. One of the reasons the Taliban are able to put up resistance, and what makes Afghans historically resistant. Your generalization are way off the mark.

If pakhtunwali is so destructive to muslims---caused so much death and destruction to the populace, then this practise needs to change---.

I don't mind if they do. But it's up to individual Pashtuns. Personally I feel that hospitality is an admirable trait, as are some of the other qualities. Perhaps they could just make better decisions about who they decide to be hospitable to. This is not a problem with Pashtunwali. Pakhtunwali is tried and tested for centuries, I don't see why it needs changing because some Westerners don't like it. It can be very flexible, as needs interpreting.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

"Meddlesome in the affairs of others"---I guess we already forgot about the ressurection of Benazir.

In afghanistan, it was as a cardinal sin to change the balance of power. Northern alliance were just a bunch of thugs and killers and they haven't changed much. The tragedy is that taliban came no better than their predecessors.

So, now the billion dollar question is what is going to happen in afghanistan, if and when things revert back to a so called normalcy---who is going to be in power. Karzai is a good yes man---and nothing more than that. In the future government, I dodn't think that he is going to be in that position. The bottomline is that anyone who is kowtowing to india will not be in power for long in afghanistan.

You know we also want democracy---we also want politicians and public office bearers and the public to be responcible as well---we want democratically elected people when they go to work they need to work---stop banging the desks---walking out in protests---shouting down people they don't like in the parliament---attorneys who have already taken the money from the clients but refusing to represent them in court---open threats against the sitting govt---threats of destruction of property---stopping the existing judges from going to work---street agitations---rock throwing---burning trains and other national assets---what democracy!!!

Now we are again hearing a lot of talk about democracy and how america supports it--we wish it did---just recently, barely a month ago, they were trying to impose upon us the most corrupt person in the history of the nation---a person who was not eligible to hold the office of prime minister---but still the u s was enforcing her upon us---no respect for our constitution---and no condemnation from democratic america about passing on the party chair person position to a 19 year old---a democratic turkey refused to give passage to the u s troops---a democratic middle east would have done the same as well---so what would a democratic govt in pakistan do---.

The world had every oppurtunity to breathe easier---they should not have asked for any confrontation in the middle east and afganistan neutralized in quick time.

 

[roadrunner]

"Since 2001, there had been no Pakistani government support of the Taliban through any supply lines."

Wrong. That's not what I said. Read more closely, please. "established" and "government" aren't one and the same.

The "established infrastructure" requires or required the compliance of ISI and the Pakistani government. Without them the same infrastructure used to fight the Soviets cannot be used. Pakistan was the supplyline in the Soviet war, now that supply line is not there (or at least not provided for by the Pakistan government and military anymore). However, even during the Soviet-Afghan war a lot of the weapons were bought on the black market, or even manufactured by the Mujahideen. It doesn't need any infrastructure in Pakistan for the Taliban to fight in Afghanistan.

"They were once allies of NATO when the Soviets had invaded."

Hardly. Their ideological predecessors (the mujahideen), however, were.

Incorrect here again. Mullah Omar was a Mujahideen fighter in the Soviet-Afghan war. Gulubbidin Hekmatyar was another Mujahideen fighter that became Talban commander. Jalaluddin Haqqani was another Mujahideen commander that became a Taliban commander. There's many more. So all these people were once allies of the US.

"Much like Pakistan's relationship with the US which has it's ups and downs."

More ups than downs, though the comparison is irrelevant as your analogy began with a significant historical inaccuracy.

It's not a historical inaccuracy. Research any of the three names mentioned above, you will find they were Mujahideen commanders against the Red Army, and they were also Taliban commanders.

"Rubbish. Pakistan is interested in a stable Afghanistan so it can trade with central asia through it. That is the main reason. Stability. Strategic depth is just a bonus."

Rubbish yet you acknowledge a "bonus" in the same paragraph. You don't need proxy alliances to safely trade with Kazakhstan. It runs far deeper. You dissemble my "rubbish". That says much.

Well, just to clarify, I meant strategic depth is secondary. The most important thing for Pakistan is (and was) stability in Afghanistan so that trading convoys could reach central asia. You might think it's not necessary, but read why Bhutto supported the Taliban initially.

"Why should Pakistan abandon such an ambition? The Pashtuns ARE Pakistan's allies. The Northern Alliance ARE India's allies. Why do you think Pakistan should side with the Northern Alliance?"

Maintaining that central asian commerce, eh? That didn't take much for you to come clean. Pashtuns? So you are pleased that Karzai has remained President since late 2001?

Were you expecting a denial here? Isn't it kind of obvious that a Pashtun dominated government would be in the best possible interests of Pakistan, just as a Tajik dominated government is in the best interests of India? If you think it is a hidden secret, then you no nothing about south/central asian politics.

Meddlesome in the sovereign affairs of another nation. The democratic process is long. Implemented w/ proper checks and balances, it is self-correcting through the voting populace who reject bad policies by rejecting candidates. Takes time but works.

Correcting bad policies indeed. I'm sure Bush would be re-elected for a third time, if the US constitution allowed it. Democracy does not work for an under-educated population, if it did you would not find all the Pashtun areas fighting the Tajik dominated Afghani government.

Any nation that fosters a facade of "one man, one vote, one time" is failing to avail itself of the self-correcting quality so evident in western discourse and politics. Voted in and out is commonplace. When as commonplace in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the world shall breathe easier.

Unless the MMA alliance is voted in through democracy. I'm sure you were breathig a sigh of relief when Hamas won in Palestine. Whew!

Your comments make clear that you favor the support of taliban to de-stabilize Afghanistan. That should, if actualized once more, resolve the Durand Line.

Or not.

I don't favour destabilization actually. I favour stabilization of Afghanistan with a Pashtun dominated government that represents the population. I think the Pashtuns of Afghanistan would be happy like this. Support for the Taliban I don't think I've mentioned, but it makes you sound like a juvenile delinquent jumping to conclusions. However I'm used to it, having been associated with all sort od fanciful exotic people and jobs by some on here. So have your fun, just as I have mine

It's always all India, all the time. India is always all money, all the time. Big difference in direction and velocity.

The effects of the weed kicking in no doubts

 

[Cheetah786]

you are are right TALIBAN are not our enemy rather they are fighting our PAKISTANS war.They are fightin against theNATO which is supporting BLA.
They are fighting US which is threateneing PAK NUKES
They are figting US which sys pakistan wont survive till 2015
They are figting NATO which has given a fre hand to INDIA.

Taliban are in bajaur in Mohmand .But the fight is going on in SOUTH WAZIRISTAN(only in Mahsud areas while 75 %is controlled by Maulvi Nazir) the reason of it is very simple mahsuds are sheltering UZBEKS and members of EAST TURKESTAN ISLAMIC MOVEMENT which damages Pak relations with CHINA .So BAITULLAH deserved it for creatng problems.

So we need to have GOOD RELATIONS with THE REAL TALIBAN and dont forget that MULLAH OMAR is the most precious asset because he si the AMEER AL MOMINEEN
whose obediance the TALIBAN consider obligatory so if PAKISTANI TALIBAN or people like MUALANA FAZLULLAH go out of control then gov can approach Mullah Omar who is pak friendly and is Much wiser Because he knows that

situation might take such a turn that ONE MISTAKE OF US or NATO
To upset BALOCHISTAN
or
VIOLATE PAKISTAN SOVEREIGNITY
or
THREATEN NUKES

would force Pakistan to help Taliban so MULLAH doesnt want conflict with Pakistan instead he wants UNION.

THUMBS UPMULLAH OMAR AND GOOD TALIBAN.

Are you for real?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

RR,

While I would encourage change, I also understand that it cannot be imposed, no matter how offensive to our sensibilities the status quo may be. The adage of "change from within" holds true. We can play our part by affecting change in areas that would in turn encourage change and introspection within the community - such as helping provide economic opportunity, education, development etc. This needs to happen not just in the FATA, but also in rural Punjab, Sindh and Baluchistan.

 

[roadrunner]

RR,

While I would encourage change, I also understand that it cannot be imposed, no matter how offensive to our sensibilities the status quo may be. The adage of "change from within" holds true. We can play our part by affecting change in areas that would in turn encourage change and introspection within the community - such as helping provide economic opportunity, education, development etc. This needs to happen not just in the FATA, but also in rural Punjab, Sindh and Baluchistan.

I agree with this statement of yours. Education, development, slowly brought in would change mindsets. A new Gandhara would be very nice instead of all what goes on now. Though I don't see much wrong in Pakhtunwali as it stands. If it was good enough for Gandhara, it's good enough for today. It can be interpreted in many different ways.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

If it was good enough for Gandhara, it's good enough for today. It can be interpreted in many different ways.

RR,

I was reading Ahmed Rashid's Taliban the other day, and his description of Afghanistan - before the Soviets, before the ethnic and sectarian massacres by Ahmed Masud, the Uzbeks and the Taliban - it was a nation where different peoples existed in relative harmony. Pakhtunwali existed then as well, and it is a noble code, misused by some perhaps.

 

[MastanKhan]

Hi,

I know of first hand that afghanistan was a very liberal nation. It was common to see afghan women wear long skirts and men in suits. A very very free and enterprising land and people. A very well cultured people with a minimal of violence.

As much as I am critical of the law of hospitality---more so I blame the muslim arab fanatics for abusing the laws of hospitality---you see these arab lunatics have lost nothing---it was not their land---it was not their people, children and women---it was not their nation---it was not their sovereignty---they had nothing that they were to lose if the u s invaded afghanistan---they would move from a cave from one side of the mountain to another cave on the other side of the mountain---for them big deal---if a nation is lost---if a family is killed---if a generation is lost---if everything is gone. What did these arabs had to lose in this war---their lives---they were already walking like living dead---they had no assets---no land---no houses---nothing to call their own, nothing to cherish---they were the out casts of their communities---they were thrown out of their nations---their own people turned on them and kicked them out---so what did the afghans see in those people that they decided to stand up against the might of the world. What made the afghans forget about the condition of their pulverized nation---?

People say that they are not educated----ok---it does not mean that un-educated people are less intelligent---it only meant that they could not fathom out what was coming. They forgot that during the afghan war, before the u s got involved, their resistence was almost close to be done. Once the u s money and aid started coming in, things did change indeed. Once there are more u s troops on the ground in afghanistan, more afghans will die. It is heading towards a lose lose situation for the pushtun taliban.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

Mastan,

That is the sad commentary.

The Arabs and more so, Saudi Arabia, are the ones who are skewing up the Islamic world and their sole claim to be the "leader" is that the Islamic holy sites are located in their country!

Khaled Hossein's books really makes one feel real sorry for the Afghans for the mess that Afghanistan is in currently.

 

[MastanKhan]

Salim,

See, arabs are going to do what is good for them. I realized this after reading the autobiography of Prince Bindar Bin Sultan. For me it is rare that I read anyones biography. This was an exception. After reading his book, I realized that the saudi oil is for the saudis---it is their money and they can spend it as they want to---and also they donate a lots of it as well---and I thank them very much for that.

Allow me to say this that the innocence of the afghans was brutally assulted by the manipulating arabs in afghanistan. Look at the sudanese---they are the first cousins of the saudis---don't they know each other better---the moment the bombs hit the baby food factory, they launched his behind out of sudan to save the country. He had done the same in somalia as well. Got kicked out the poor nation as well.

It has been stated that the al qaeda organization was literally controlling what was coming out of the mouth of mullah Omar. So, there is a possibility that the afghans may have wanted other considerations---but their govt had no control over the matters. The arab group was very well organized, focused, in charge had the denaros and knew its goals. Mullah Omar, possibly brain washed by the religious stories and the glory days was taken for such a ride that his feet have not yet hit the ground since he took off on that yamaha 100cc---riding pillion and disappeared into the hills.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It is not simply the Arabs - The Deobandi school of thought out of India formed the ideological basis of the Pakistani Jamaat-e-Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) and Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) - whose Madrassa's in turn churned out so many of the Taliban fighters.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Baitullah is on his own, say Afghan Taliban​

Bureau Report


PESHAWAR, Jan 28: The Taliban in Afghanistan have distanced themselves from Pakistani militants led by Baitullah Mehsud, saying they don’t support any militant activity in Pakistan.

“We do not support any militant activity and operation in Pakistan,” Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid told Dawn on telephone from an undisclosed location on Monday.

The spokesman denied media reports that the Taliban had expelled Baitullah Mehsud, the head of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan.

“Baitullah is a Pakistani and we as the Afghan Taliban have nothing to do with his appointment or his expulsion. We did not appoint him and we have not expelled him,” he said.

A spokesman for Baitullah Mehsud has already denied the expulsion report in a Hong Kong magazine and said that the militant leader continued to be the amir of Tehrik-Taliban Pakistan.

“He has not been expelled and he continues to be the amir of Pakistani Taliban,” Baitullah’s spokesman Maulavi Omar said.

The Asia Times Online in a report last week claimed that the Taliban supreme leader Mullah Mohammad Omar had removed Baitullah from the leadership of the Taliban movement for fighting in Pakistan at the expense of ‘Jihad’ in Afghanistan.

“We have no concern with anybody joining or leaving the Taliban movement in Pakistan. Ours is an Afghan movement and we as a matter of policy do not support militant activity in Pakistan,” the Taliban spokesman said.

“Had he been an Afghan we would have expelled him the same way we expelled Mansoor Dadullah for disobeying the orders of Mullah Omar. But Baitullah is a Pakistani Talib and whatever he does is his decision. We have nothing to do with it,” Mr Mujahid maintained.

“We have nothing to do with anybody’s appointment or expulsion in the Pakistani Taliban movement,” he insisted.

Baitullah, who has been accused of plotting the assassination of Ms Benazir Bhutto, told Al Jazeera in an interview that he had taken baya’h (oath of allegiance) to Mullah Muhammad Omar and obeyed his orders.

But the Taliban spokesman said the oath of allegiance did not mean that Pakistani militants were under direct operational control of Mullah Omar.

“There are mujahideen in Iraq who have taken baya’h to Mullah Omar and there are mujahideen in Saudi Arabia who have taken baya’h to him. So taking baya’h does not mean that Mullah Omar has direct operational control over them,” the spokesman said.

Baitullah is on his own, say Afghan Taliban -DAWN - Top Stories; January 29, 2008

I think this story would support the contention that the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan remain distinct entities. Within Pakistan Baitullah is allegedly upset at the negotiations going on between the North Waziristan Taliban and the GoP - indicating that despite the formation of the TTP the Taliban remain fractured along Tribal lines.

However, Baitullah Mehsud, the amir of the Pakistani Taliban, told Al Jazeera television that the forces had deceived militant groups by engaging one group in talks and carrying out attacks in other areas.
Talks for new peace deal in N. Waziristan -DAWN - Top Stories; January 29, 2008

What the last three paragraphs suggest is that Mullah Omar has taken on a symbolic aura, similar to OBL for Al Qaeda, with anyone having pretensions to furthering the Taliban cause legitimizing themselves by accepting his "leadership". From what I remember, Zarqawi in Iraq conducted a lot of his mayhem on his own initially, and it was his success that led to AQ recognizing him and his organization as their representative in Iraq. A very troubling decentralization of terror.