Terror activities of Indian consulates in Afghanistan

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Neither her peers nor I were particularly impressed.

The credentials of two of her peers I have clearly illustrated to be biased towards the Indian POV, and you are not quite the shining example of objectivity and truth either, given your genocidal rants about the Pashtun and Pakistanis.

Her views match up with the other sources I posted, and are largely in line with the views of other experts calling for greater transparency in Indian operations in Afghanistan and addressing Pakistan's legitimate concerns in that country. Unless you can show me that CF and others are deliberately lying, and why, I see no valid refutation from your side of the points she made.

Why the US officially continues to tow a line that is patently wrong is evident from a glance at is official policy WRT Israel and her actions in contravention of international law and UNSC resolutions. While the Palestinians get sanctioned and condemned unequivocally, patently illegal and inflammatory policies of Israel get called 'unhelpful'.

The implication is clear - US rhetoric of 'doing the right thing' and 'principles' only extend as far as her interests and the interests of those she considers a strategic ally are not affected. By refusing to stop Indian activities in Afghanistan against Pakistan, or even acknowledging them, and continuing to pressure Pakistan to act regardless of the threat posed to Pakistan from India, is essentially an attempt to both serve US interests in Afghanistan, those of India as well as the strategic relationship with India.

You said so about Baluchistan, remember? Your army would defend that land if it was seriously threatened but they don't.

I said what about Baluchistan?

I do remember saying that there were over 20000 plus FC deployed in Baluchistan to combat that insurgency, and combat operations have been supported with regular PA units as well as the PA Aviation arm. However, I also pointed out that the PA would not deploy a significant number of troops to Baluchistan because:

1. The same reason it is reluctant to reorient towards the North West, that is leaving its Eastern Flank unguarded against Indian aggression.

2. The FC-Baluchistan has managed to keep the insurgency largely under control without significant PA help.

3. The Baluch rebels do not possess the demographic advantage, local support and direct contact with India to perform an 'East Pakistan', and so long as the 'Taliban buffer' exists between them and Afghanistan, they will not be able to do so through Afghanistan after the US leaves either.

4. Even if territory is 'lost' to the Baluch rebels or Taliban, the loss will be temporary and the territory can and will be reclaimed, given that neither the taliban nor the baluch rebels can hold territory in the face of a superior Military force. Losing territory to another State, one with a conventional military both numerically, and in some ways qualitatively, superior will likely be territory lost for good, given the experience over Kashmir in the past, and the emasculated response of the international community in ensuring implementation of the UNSC resolutions.

This has been posted before, so you either have a really poor memory or are deliberately distorting my position.

None of the above takes away from the fact that India continues to support terrorist elements in Baluchistan with funds - funds without which these groups would have a hard time operating even at the level that they are currently at.

And while the insurgency in Baluchistan has not blown up the way FATA has, the frequent attacks on the FC, police, government workers and institutions impose a significant cost on Pakistan and ensure that the province remains in a state of instability that retards development and progress. So the Indian support for this insurgency has a significant impact on the overall situation in Baluchistan, and more so, support for an insurgency under US noses in Afghanistan in the current situation is an insight into future Indian policy through Afghanistan when the US leaves.

The threat is real and tangible, as illustrated by the reports posted so far - if it isn't, then I'll wait for those guarantees against Indian aggression if the PA reorients itself towards the West, which shouldn't be an issue if the West truly believes that India has no intention of acting in such a manner.

Perhaps Mullen and Hollbrooke will convince their 'strategic partner to be' to stop this 'game' while in Delhi. I won't hold my breath though.

Cheers.

 

[S-2]

"I see no valid refutation from your side of the points she made."

1. Zahedan- Iranian city. Pakistan, Iran, and India. That's her first point. Where, exactly, do you see America, Afghanistan, the U.N. and NATO again?

2. "Provocative" roads in Nimroz. Really? To Pakistan? As though your input on building roads in Afghanistan is requested or required. However, it is eminently sound to connect western land-locked Afghanistan with Iran's largest and newest port. That should eliminate any dependancy upon Karachi for ocean access and facilitate the rapid reinforcement of Indian divisions...

...in the meantime the rest of two nations will use it to transport minerals, saffron, wheat, people and other sundry items.

3. Schools in Konar are a particularly dangerous threat? Who would be making that determination and on what basis?

4. The N.A. and Mazur-I-Sharif twelve years ago? So? Does this explain why you're so upset at Farim's and Massoud's proteges?

Have you ever heard the song, Little Pink Houses by John Mellencamp-

"There are winners and there are losers. And it ain't no big deal..."

Tell your pashtu buddies in A-stan to vote. Give ol' Omar a call and tell him to let them vote. Tell him to encourage them to vote...

Aw, what's the point?

A.M., you really don't have sh!t, do you?

Thus Ms. Fair's points refuted. Next?

"Why the US officially continues to tow a line that is patently wrong is evident from a glance at is official policy WRT Israel and her actions in contravention of international law and UNSC resolutions. While the Palestinians get sanctioned and condemned unequivocally, patently illegal and inflammatory policies of Israel get called 'unhelpful'."

strawman and irrelevant to the topic.

Next?

That's it?

Then that's the way it is. We really don't believe you and suspect it will take a very long time to break your corporate culture. We also don't believe that you face any assault by India from Afghanistan. Neither in Baluchistan nor FATA. Afghanistan cannot say the same of Pakistan and that's a GROSSLY painful understatement.

You've got my government and NATO by the balls as Karachi is one of two ports that make sense and constitute a single nation trans-shipment. Were I to seek India's help, it would be to act as an interlocutor with the Iranian government to ship the full range of supplies, material, weapons, and ammunition through their nation.

Therefore, Karachi's port is likely why Pakistan is still a player. Otherwise, my suspicion is that Pakistan would be viewed as an open enemy of the U.N. mandate and, specifically, NATO's mission. If you care to discuss those reasons, we can do so elsewhere.

I sure wouldn't want to hijack a thread by doing something silly like bringing up the Palestinians when discussing your other favorite subject, India.

 

[muse]

S2

You may want to reconsider what seems to be a strong anti-pashtun sentiment -- after all, Pashtun are the majority population in Afghanistan -- Pashtun and Afghan mean the same thing in Afghanistan.

Now, US has been feeding from NA table for a while, but I now sense increasingly U.S officials and field operatives are now changing their attitude - and the reason for this isn as they become more familiar they understand the BS the NA has been feeding them.

Lets deal with realities, not goal posts that are not relevant to the majority.

 

[S-2]

"You may want to reconsider what seems to be a strong anti-pashtun sentiment "

You may wish to note that I'd like to see Pashtus use their plurality to attain their objectives through the electoral process. That's been made repeatedly by myself here and just a couple of posts ago. Is that not so?

Having taken the time, therefore, to defend myself, I will note that admitting the Pakistani government's wholly reliance upon the Pashtus at the expense of including the tajiks, Hazara, uzbek, and turkomen as partners right from the start of the anti-Soviet jihad to the present might help.

I'm not anti-pashtu but most here are sure as hell anti- N.A. Muse, that's everybody but the pashtus.

There would seem to be some polarization along those lines, eh?

In any case, Pakistan's sophomoric sponsorship of the pashtu taliban at the absolute exclusion of any others (go figure) render A.M.'s crocodile tears over the current ethnic makeup of the afghan gov't null.

I offered recourse through the vote and am chastised.

For shame.

 

[muse]

S2


God is great and inshallah you will have the chance to meet some ex officers of Democractic Republic of Afghanistan, Army -- you will then have a better understanding of NA and you will understand that NA is only known to international community, whereas in Afghanistan, it is only Ahmad Shah that is the entirety of NA and are simply "mujahideen". to distinguish between the talib and the old Mujahideen

I very much agree that Pakistan are at a disadvantage for having so unequivocal in their disapproval of NA -- but there is no one handed clapping, that the NA is isolated and alienated from Pakistan has much to do with the fact that NA is fighting a war long past.

Pashtuns should vote? Are you implying Karzai sits in Kabul on the back of the vote by non-Pashtuns and therfore illegitimately?

Afghan society is largely, overwhelmingly, genuinely,TRIBAL - this is the starting point of all understanding of Afghanistan -- it may be perception but Pashtun percieve themselves as besieged, and fact of matter is that Talib movement is in reality a Pashtun movement (even though in Afghanistan all Talib are Pakistani) {there are no bad guys in Afghanistan, they all come from Pakistan} - at least so long as the listener is an American this is the message, no one needs to teach the Afghan to sell what the market is buying,

When you say "elections" you are really saying vote for who the U.S wants to set up - and mullah omar and the talib are nowhere on the ballot - I had 7 years ago pointed that what was required was a pashtun politcal party that carried the talib core -- but of course Pakistani suggestions were less than welcome -- don't think the Pahtun did not vote for Karzai to be "king" and please , please do not thinkthat the ideas the talib stand for are restricted to the Pashtun. You will find areas in which Pashtun and Tajik villages close by, particular ly fascinating.

Either way, Pashtun are not going to go away and dealing with them is key in Afghanistan -- Gul Agha Sherzai is such an intereting chareacter isn't he? and such friends in high places.



It seems to me that Messrs Holbrook and Mullen will leave Pakistan empty handed, the U.S friendly civilian government and so called democracy is not up to the challenge and the Fauj will not play it's assigned "fall guy" role - maybe the Iranian route can yield serious outcomes the U.S. may want to consider.

If the idea that Afghanistan is a landmass more that it is a nation state as the chinese have recently noted, then perhaps the Iranian (read Indian) parts can allow the creation of entities friendlier to the U.S. and the Pashtuns can exert themselves on the Pakistani and exorcise what passes for affinity in Pakistan.

 

[Hellfire]

Muse

Your input was commendable and in line with honesty. However the fact remains that whenever you allow the religion to rule over the governance, there is bound to be opposition always and if the opposition is on the foundations of religion, then its a dangerous drift as religion is something which ups the masses into a frenzy.

Attainment of power is the basic driving force in all leaders and the same shall apply to religion subordinated governance and manipulation of religion to attain political power will be the name of the game with its tremendous consequences.

Whatever be the fault of Northern Alliance, under Ahmed Shah Masood it was relatively very tolerant of various aspects of the multipluralistic afghan society. Taliban, which was initially a provider of security, peace and stability in a war shattered post-Soviet Afghanistan, got carried away in the religious agenda failing to recognise the need to embrace the variables of Afghan society.

If US, India and others champion the cause of democracy, its not because its what prevails in these countries but because what has evolved over hundreds of years and been found to be suitable for the all round development of the population and granting basic respect to every citizen ..... autocratic rule is simply unacceptable .... and that is why you find US more keen to be with NA.

In addition, the strategy is simple-classify talibs in to good and bad and use the ones you can control; to cut the other so as to reduce your own casualties. Great strategy which has been proved over hundreds of years in sub-continent

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

S-2:

You haven't refuted jack ****. Read the excerpts of her comments in the Daily Times report again. I have no patience for your dissembling nonsense to re-post what is obvious. What did the roads and schools have to do with my argument?

render A.M.'s crocodile tears over the current ethnic makeup of the afghan gov't null.

I do not have issue with the 'ethnic makeup' of the officials I pointed out, nor have I ever made any claims based on 'ethnicity', that is you once more dissembling and distorting. I do see serious issues with whose lackey's those people were and the fact that they were key parts of an Indian proxy.

Another great choice in an important Afghan post is the Interior minister Mohammad Hanif Atmar, a Pashtun, but whose bio from Wiki sure as heck doesn't warm the cockles of Pakistani hearts based on ethnicity alone:

As an adolescent and young adult he worked for the KHAD, an Afghan security and intelligence agency with strong ties to to the Soviet KGB,[4] including with a special-operations unit.[3] During the Soviet-Afghan War he fought against the Afghan mujahideen, and lost a leg defending Jalalabad in 1988.[3] Atmar left for the United Kingdom after the fall of Kabul.[3]

Serving in the Khad and Soviet KGB, that wouldn't be while Khad with Soviet help was helping the Baluch rebels and setting off bombs in Pakistani cities now woudl it?

The NA was an Indian and anti-Pakistan proxy at least till 2002. The presence of proteges of the NA warlords in powerful Afghan ministries such as defence and intelligence, along with the information of Indian support for terrorism out of Afghanistan, is a significant concern for Pakistan. You would have to be in complete denial to not see that.

I have plenty - you still have to refute the accusations made by CF and others of Indian support for rebels in Baluchistan, and why they would just decide to 'fabricate' this out of thin air.

The views of two of her vocal critics in that panel have been discredited given their patent pro-Indian biases.

strawman and irrelevant to the topic.

Very relevant to the topic, since blatant US double standards, obfuscation and refusal to condemn what are patently immoral, unethical and illegal polices by the Israelis provides insight into why the US refuses to address Pakistani concerns over Indian support for terrorism in Pakistan through Afghanistan.

Your insecurities over the Karachi port are all yours, though it is extremely amusing to see you so eager to kiss Ayatollah *** now, after so many years of demonizing them as you now do Pakistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

but because what has evolved over hundreds of years and been found to be suitable for the all round development of the population and granting basic respect to every citizen

That is the key here - Western societies and systems have evolved over hundreds of years into what they are today. What the West has attempted to do in Afghanistan is try and shove a system obtained over hundreds of years onto a tribal society.

To that end, perhaps Obama's lowering of the goal posts and talk of a decentralized Afghanistan is perhaps more in line with the reality of Afghanistan's society.

 

[muse]

Hellfire

I hope you will have the opportunity to talk and to observe, local afghan nationals in Afghanistan -- you will note that the social and religious attitudes between the Pashtun and the tajik in the countryside are indistinguishable.

In the city the differences are marked - university educations for the tajik and the especially the Hazara, not so for the pashtun - city life for the Tajik, outskirt slums for the Pashtun.

NA tolerant of religious diversity??

Look, I am trying to be patient, so let me see if I can recap with you what the Talib NA conflict was about -- The NA, AKA mujahideen, had earned a repuatation as degenerates after the fall of Najib's regime, Talib were welcomed as reformers, in the sense they would right the Mujahid wrongs - it had nothing to do with who was tolerant of what religion or sect.

Talib punished what they percieved as curious loyalties of tajik and hazara (read Iran - read India) and by the way, if you are ever in Afghanistan and want to press a button, let your interlocutor know you thought he or she was a sh'iah - remember the Tajik, speak Dari a farsi type but they are Sunni.

If US, India and others champion the cause of democracy, its not because its what prevails in these countries but because what has evolved over hundreds of years and been found to be suitable for the all round development of the population and granting basic respect to every citizen ..... autocratic rule is simply unacceptable .... and that is why you find US more keen to be with NA.

Spare me. Please. And please allow for the same evolution to work itself out in other places as deserving as those which champion the cause of democracy

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

In any case, I am bowing out of this discussion in deference to Muse's far more nuanced and enlightened views.

S-2, sorry, but unless you can show me if and why CF or the others are lying, I consider this discussion ended.

 

[S-2]

"S-2, sorry, but unless you can show me if and why CF or the others are lying, I consider this discussion ended."

Lying? Willful dissemblance? You saw her explicit comments. I explicitly retorted all four points she used. You had no answer.

Why would I know or care what happens in Baluchistan from Iran? Isn't that where Ms. Fair saw such operations? Isn't Zahedan in Iran? Is Iran a friend of America?

You wish to end? Fine. It's unlikely I can convince you of anything nor should I try. My government hasn't seen India act inappropriate to their brief in Afghanistan. You say otherwise but offer little proof. As to elsewhere, I don't really care nor believe that I should. Outside America's purview, if you will.

Will it help you if I agree? I'll do that. It won't matter to my government though. I can use them for cover to maintain harmony here. Would you like that?

That can be arranged.

 

[S-2]

"God is great and inshallah ... you will understand that NA... is only Ahmad Shah that is the entirety of NA and are simply "mujahideen". to distinguish between the talib and the old Mujahideen..."

Allah Akbar! but there's nothing so ecclesiastical about my education. I, instead, sit at your feet- a modest but evidently learned man.

You're likely correct and I've read this distinction before. Thank you.

"Pashtuns should vote? Are you implying Karzai sits in Kabul on the back of the vote by non-Pashtuns and therfore illegitimately?"

I think it's fair to suggest that on the first go-around that not every Pashtu tribal leader was sold on the need or desire to cooperate with this new venture. Like the sunni of Iraq, they lost their political voice these last four years as a consequence.

I'd encourage them to participate and use their plurality. If it takes tribal leaders to mobilize this constituency, so be it. However foreign or threatening-or not, mobilizing a constituency is a pre-condition to the modern political process. In Afghanistan a plurality exists among Pashtu should they vote as an absolute block.

"...you are really saying vote for who the U.S wants to set up - and mullah omar and the talib are nowhere on the ballot"

I am not saying that and there are forty other nations spending their blood to see a bit more than America's personal fiefdom. Tacky in the extreme.

Mullah Omar is the leader of the defeated taliban government and presently my nation's enemy. Further, he resides in Pakistan at present. Should he wish to present his nomination papers at a local Afghani voter registration office, that would be wonderful.

Can this be arranged?

He will have to surrender his weapons and no doubt answer one or two modest questions. I'm sure afterward Karzai and him would do that huggy thingy and all will be forgotten.

One small problem, Muse. Ol' Mullah Omar has unequivocably said there will be NO DISCUSSION until NATO leaves Afghanistan. Do we look like we're leaving? I think we look like we are doubling down. You know us yanks? On the mat in Iraq and now?

So, yeah, Omar senses he's in the catbird seat and can have it all the old-fashioned way-by the point of a gun rather than participatory politics. I mean, c'mon? Can you see Mullah Omar on the campaign trail giving speeches and meeting with the western press and explaining their "platform"?

Your comment therefore, Muse, is more than a tad dissembling given the practical realities.

"It seems to me that Messrs Holbrook and Mullen will leave Pakistan empty handed, the U.S friendly civilian government and so called democracy is not up to the challenge and the Fauj will not play it's assigned "fall guy" role - maybe the Iranian route can yield serious outcomes the U.S. may want to consider."

I'm not holding my breath and neither are our strategic planners. Anything and everything that can be jammed through Karachi should be until matters go south.

Worse, they likely won't for lack of an alternative. As such, think of the U.S.-Pakistani relationship as a marriage that's staying together for the children...

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

S-2:

Read read read, and carefully - you keep insisting upon roads and schools, despite the fact that I highlighted a very specific part of CF's comments:

Having visited the Indian mission in Zahedan, Iran, I can assure you they are not issuing visas as the main activity! Moreover, India has run operations from its mission in Mazar (through which it supported the Northern Alliance) and is likely doing so from the other consulates it has reopened in Jalalabad and Qandahar along the border. Indian officials have told me privately that they are pumping money into Baluchistan.

Either show me that she, and the other sources posted, is lying here, and why, or as I said, there is no point in continuing the discussion.

 

[muse]

In Afghanistan a plurality exists among Pashtu should they vote as an absolute block.

Yaar, once again,

Afghan society is largely, overwhelmingly, genuinely,TRIBAL - this is the starting point of all understanding of Afghanistan

Pashtun is not a single tribe, but dozens and sub tribes, clans - and I think you will find the differences between the Arab and the Pashtun tribes interesting -- however; the leadership in both systems does struggle in the interests of their kinsmen and tribe as much as their own - it was very interesting, to actually run into people who did not need to deliver but felt a obligation to do so -

One would overhear conversations, and always be amused that those who obviously did not vote for him, claimed Karzai as a Pashtun, so long as a an "angraiz" was in earshot.

Your point about it being "too bad" that Mullah Omar and his talib core canot participate in elections until foreign forces are gone is going to go down well in Delhi - If Mullah Omar does participate he will legitimize foreign forces that dismantled his regime and since he can't do this with out losing credibility, and as he will not recourse to the ballot (not his stroing point, you understand), hw is open to criticism for not being "democratic" unlike Karzai who is "democratic" for lack of the pashtun vote -- such interesting choices, the ordianary Afghan is amused and as long as the $$ flow, it's tolerable.

Pakistan and US a relation for the kids -- too bad, I think if the Pakistani can be faulted for having no character nor self respect, why must the American compete in these attributes with the Pakistani.

Does the American look like he is leaving Afghanistan? To me , yes - I think The Pakistani establishment read the same thing and will press for greater encouragement ($$) -- and I think the US ought not fall for this line and should pursue venues to the West and put those roads in Nimruz to a test.

Had a friend MoS 9B, an embed, had interesting things to say about Farah but live and learn, "go West young man", so to speak and then something about the prodigal.

 

[S-2]

"Does the American look like he is leaving Afghanistan? To me , yes..."

Based upon what, if you don't mind?

"I think The Pakistani establishment read the same thing and will press for greater encouragement ($$) -- and I think the US ought not fall for this line and should pursue venues to the West and put those roads in Nimruz to a test."

Pakistan has read well, sir. Until something more definitive emerges, NATO/ISAF/America have little choice. Cajones comes to mind. You have ours where it matters most and this sad but salient fact limits our operational and strategic flexibility.

So we will tolerate your infidelities as you must, evidently, tolerate ours in this marriage of self-sacrifice.

"Had a friend MoS 9B, an embed, had interesting things to say about Farah but live and learn, "go West young man", so to speak and then something about the prodigal."

Ah, Horace Greeley and parables from the new testament. Yes. Words for the wise to be sure.

Too bad you won't share his more specific highlights of Farah. MoS 9B? I'm unfamiliar. Could you help?