Mostly Pakistani nationals fighting for ISIS in Afghanistan: Taliban

[FULL_METAL]

You should fcking understand there is only one power standing between you infidels and these ISIS who would enjoy more to behead an infidel than me, and that someone is Pakistan.

Now keep on ranting, and spare me your ignorant lectures. You are taught to hate Pakistan and that is the best you do, tomorrow ISIS would say people fighting them are Pakistanis and I am sure you would believe ISIS.

Lol we infidels have a million strong army armed to teeth with the deadliest weapons possible, we don't need a Pakistan to save us, let the believers come we will be more than happy burning them alive the hindu way

 

[saiyan0321]

So? Having nationals automatically makes it that Pakistan is supporting them? They are based on ttp and Taliban rogue factions that have deserted them. Due to heavy Taliban presence and Taliban foothold Isis has been unable to create a strong presence while the western Afghanistan is under govt control and will not so easily join Isis.

All those that have joined isis are terrorists who must be eliminated with extreme prejudice. They are not Indian, Pakistani, Afghani, Iraqi, Irani, e.t.c they are terrorists. They must be eliminated.

 

[hkdas]

seriously? references?

You know the titles of Nawab Bugti, Nawab Marri, are all bestowed by the British.

The resistance was so high that the British built their command and staff college in Quetta.

The resistance was so high that both India's Field Marshals, FM Cariappa
and FM Manekshaw were graduates of Quetta Staff College

Please do you homework. It's disgraceful

british ruled in Afghanistan too.. don't you know that afghans showed higest resistance to british rule.

 

[pakistani342]

british ruled in Afghanistan too.. don't you know that afghans showed higest resistance to british rule.

Aaa yes and Afghanistan won it's independence from British rule in 1919 -- what is your point?

In 1857 there was the first Jang-e Azadi (sepoy mutiny) -- so the British didn't rule India -- I'm confused

Homework, homework, homework

 

[nForce]

Mmm, yes it is wrong in an ideal world -- but so is the State based system, in an ideal world.

Pakistan cannot be held to higher standards than other states -- doing so would at the very least be racist.

Denying that other states exert hegemony for example: Afghanistan, India, China, Israel, Turkey, US, etc. -- would at the very least be intellectually dishonest.

Good to know your point of view. Now a few points for you.

1. If you think it is wrong to meddle in others' matters then by that logic it is none of your business what India does with Goa or Hyderabad or Sikkim. It is in our interest, for the sake of greater good and things have played out well to confirm that it was a right course of action. We executed our plans successfully there.

2. Does Pakistan do the same ? It tries the same thing with Kashmir, which has been a failure so far. It tried the same thing with Afghanistan, in fact Pakistan was among the first country to recognize Taliban govt. But that has been a failure too. So, I don't really get the idea of how exactly you are trying to get the moral high ground here. It's just the fact that India has been successful while Pakistan not.

If Pakistan had the capability to do it any better it would have done that already.

 

[hkdas]

Are you mistaking that with Waziristan camping of 1919 and 1939 because there was never any Baloch rebellion or any British campaign in Balochistan. Now what about Nehru promise to Sikhs ?

neharu never promised a separate country for sikhs. but pakistanis do promised to kashmirs that they will get a desperate country for them.. but till now noting happens and P.O.K is still occupied by pakistan.

 

[SarthakGanguly]

It's just the fact that India has been successful while Pakistan not.

Exactly.

neharu never promised a separate country for sikhs. but pakistanis do promised to kashmirs that they will get a desperate country for them.. but till now noting happens and P.O.K is still occupied by pakistan.

No. They did create Govt of Azad (Jammu and )Kashmir. But it has not been recognized by any country. Not even Pakistan.

 

[hkdas]

Aaa yes and Afghanistan won it's independence from British rule in 1919 -- what is your point?

In 1857 there was the first Jang-e Azadi (sepoy mutiny) -- so the British didn't rule India -- I'm confused

Homework, homework, homework

my point is that just like british in afghanistan.. british raj was also in balugustan but have a high resistance from the indigenous population.

 

[pakistani342]

Good to know your point of view. Now a few points for you.

1. If you think it is wrong to meddle in others' matters then by that logic it is none of your business what India does with Goa or Hyderabad or Sikkim. It is in our interest, for the sake of greater good and things have played out well to confirm that it was a right course of action. We executed our plans successfully there.

Slight defect -- before you annexed them they were not internal India
Further my point was -- what is good for India might possibly be good for Pakistan?

2. Does Pakistan do the same ? It tries the same thing with Kashmir, which has been a failure so far. It tried the same thing with Afghanistan, in fact Pakistan was among the first country to recognize Taliban govt. But that has been a failure too. So, I don't really get the idea of how exactly you are trying to get the moral high ground here. It's just the fact that India has been successful while Pakistan not.

If Pakistan had the capability to do it any better it would have done that already.

Well the answer is in your statement -- so far ... so if tomorrow it was a success it would OK?
The future is always in motion: said Yoda?

So India was a failure in the 1950s -- maybe Pakistan will succeed in 2050?

success is only transient -- Indians were snake charmers in the 1950 (according to your Union Minister) now they are leaders in the computing revolution

The history of Pakistan does not start with 1947 nor does it end with the recognition of the Taliban government.

Nations fall, nations stand, nations fall again, they stand again

India -- the erstwhile India has been split into three nations Pakistan, Bangladesh and India -- how is that success?

And 2 out of the 3 nations are hostile to India.

The Indian civilization is confined to one landmass -- Chinese, Caucasians, Muslims? -- low bar for success

Morality is very important to me -- may not be to you

my point is that just like british in afghanistan.. british raj was also in balugustan but have a high resistance from the indigenous population.

so 1957 was not high resistance? and then what?

 

[SarthakGanguly]

before you annexed them they were not internal India

Wrong. It was an Indian princely state. But not a part of the Dominion of India (then).

Morality is very important to me -- may not be to you

Morality should be important to you. We, being pagans don't have that baggage anymore. We have no Heaven waiting for us anyway.

 

[hkdas]

so 1957 was not high resistance? and then what?

can't understand engish?
the british raj may have military school in balugistan. but that don't mean they were in full controll of that area. and balugistan was not the part of british india.. after independence, pakistan occupy the land by force

 

[pakistani342]

can't understand engish?
the british raj may have military school in balugistan. but that don't mean they were in full controll of that area. and balugistan was not the part of british india.. after independence pakistan force filly occupy the land.

Really the British were not in full control of Baluchistan -- please read history -- what stupidity!

On "after independence pakistan force filly occupy the land" do you have any reference to that from a News Source of record? if so post it? I have not found a single one.

 

[hkdas]

Really the British were not in full control of Baluchistan -- please read history -- what stupidity!

you go and read the history.

 

[pakistani342]

you go and read the history.

you stupid idiot -- post a single reference where the British didn't control Baluchistan -- what stupidity

 

[hkdas]

British didn't control Baluchistan

not fully control Baluchistan.