Kharian_Beast
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2008
- Messages
- 1,645
- Reaction score
- 0
It's no secret, it just probably didn't concern you specifically maybe.
Terror activities of Indian consulates in Afghanistan
- Thread starter Awesome
- Start date
It's no secret, it just probably didn't concern you specifically maybe.
Kharian_Beast
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2008
- Messages
- 1,645
- Reaction score
- 0
Do you really think Pakistan was the factor behind the ever present low IQ of most of your nationals (hence this post) ?
Hilarious, I've read everything now.
PS - Don't let the door catch your towel on the way out.
Last edited by a moderator:
AliFarooq
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2008
- Messages
- 1,969
- Reaction score
- 0
where the fcuk were u when taliban took after the russian invasion, dnt blame others, it ur people that are to be blamed, then go say this to the americans.
Last edited by a moderator:
S-2
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2007
- Messages
- 4,210
- Reaction score
- 0
"We can talk about stability later, but for now you are engaged in war, and war does not equal stability."
I agree but the question is with whom? Once the real enemy is defined we may better find final resolution.
Certainly, our declared enemy of al Qaeda will permit the time necessary to see what rises to the fore. We can do battle with that mythic enemy in Afghanistan possibly forever without having to declare victory and leave.
Our presence, therefore, seems indispensible. You need never fear us abandoning you again. Indeed, we'll be like neighbors.
Bestest buddies. America, the GoA, U.N., India...and Pakistan
It could happen.
I agree but the question is with whom? Once the real enemy is defined we may better find final resolution.
Certainly, our declared enemy of al Qaeda will permit the time necessary to see what rises to the fore. We can do battle with that mythic enemy in Afghanistan possibly forever without having to declare victory and leave.
Our presence, therefore, seems indispensible. You need never fear us abandoning you again. Indeed, we'll be like neighbors.
Bestest buddies. America, the GoA, U.N., India...and Pakistan
It could happen.
I think the Video claim was exaggerated by the poster. The original claim from Mush/Pak govt. was that BLA people were meeting Indian officials in Europe. They later published images of a someone associated with BLA and Indian consular officials together in a conference.
India's reaction was that the conference was a normal diplomatic event (some sort of a talk about Afghan/Baloch people) and that there was no funding or anything going to Balochistan.
Anyone has any evidence otherwise ? I am still hunting for the original story (I remember it was on rediff -both claim and counterclaim )
Updated : Got a link to the story - not from rediff, but from Hindu and with detailed claims.
http://www.hindu.com/2007/03/10/stories/2007031007511400.htm
Last edited:
lol webby u are awosme, love ur sence of humor
It is funny and it is a way of venting the anger.
But I think not all Afghan's are terrorist and this one was flamebaiting/trolling than terrorizing. Let's not fall in to the Western Media trap of calling everyone we dislike a terrorist.
It was shared with those who matter (I.E. the US side).
"We can talk about stability later, but for now you are engaged in war, and war does not equal stability."
I agree but the question is with whom? Once the real enemy is defined we may better find final resolution.
Certainly, our declared enemy of al Qaeda will permit the time necessary to see what rises to the fore. We can do battle with that mythic enemy in Afghanistan possibly forever without having to declare victory and leave.
Our presence, therefore, seems indispensible. You need never fear us abandoning you again. Indeed, we'll be like neighbors.
Bestest buddies. America, the GoA, U.N., India...and Pakistan
It could happen.
I wish the American side had never left (the aid had continued) after the Soviets departed. A lot of this mess could have been avoided.
Just the other day there was a demo in NWFP. For the first time I saw people holding placards stating "No to the murderers of Pashtuns". This has some fairly ominous signs for all those who are involved. This problem has moved far beyond the issue of AQ and some Taliban.
US can't really win, can they ? If they stay they are called "occupying forces" or "imperialistic" (Iraq, Japan and current Afghanistan). If they leave then they are blamed for leaving a mess.
Read my post carefully. The US were never really in Afghanistan after the Russians departed. However had the level of aid given to the Afghans continued at the same level (It was $1 billion USD from the US fully matched by the Saudis plus the rest of the aid), some $2.5 billion USD could have been going into the Afghan economy and development, looking at the purchasing power of this money back in 1988, it could have done wonders and not allowed a series of bankrupt governments to come to power in Kabul.
In any case that is in the past, now the situation is as such that you hear people talk about Taliban without knowing what Taliban is evolving into.
The US does have an option. It is to negotiate with those who are willing to talk (Pashtuns are pragmatic people), continue the economic and nation building path and then extricate the military component of this engagement/occupation. Even the current Afghan government (Karzai) is suggesting that this surge in forces will be counter productive. As much as it may be a bitter pill to swallow, there is no military solution on either side of the border. Pakistan cannot defeat this problem on the military side alone, and neither can the ISAF in Afghanistan.
S-2
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2007
- Messages
- 4,210
- Reaction score
- 0
This is correct. In point of fact, however I may agree or disagree with blain2, we had no historic role in Afghanistan and would likely be immediately seen by a weakened Soviet Union of encroaching.
Equally, others (namely the PRC) would have screamed to high heaven about our neo-imperialist ambitions. It may be, in retrospect, that we were the only ones who might have prevented a civil war. More likely, though, we'd simply become sucked into a different if extreme mess.
Altogether unpredictable- both the immediate and all down-stream perturbations from such a change.
It is what it is and we must deal with matters as they and not as we'd wish.
Equally, others (namely the PRC) would have screamed to high heaven about our neo-imperialist ambitions. It may be, in retrospect, that we were the only ones who might have prevented a civil war. More likely, though, we'd simply become sucked into a different if extreme mess.
Altogether unpredictable- both the immediate and all down-stream perturbations from such a change.
It is what it is and we must deal with matters as they and not as we'd wish.
S-2,
While I agree with the very last point, I do want to point out that during the last phases of Soviet stay in Afghanistan, the PRC were actually on the same team as the US, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. They wanted nothing to do with the Soviet presence in Afghanistan (Sino-Soviet rivalry). After the Soviets left and the country was left to all and sundry, it caused a bigger problem for all of Afghanistan's neighbors including China (they are barely neighbors through the Vakhan valley but neighbors nevertheless).
US's business in Afghanistan was to keep Russia out, it suited Pakistan too (since India and Russia were seen as allies) so they both went in to Afghanistan. When Russia left, US left. In as much as the US/Pak interference helped Afghanistan, there is no obligation for US to pay.
US is not United Nations or an internationally recognized aid org. that is somehow morally obligated to help Afghanistan. Pakistan, Iran and India may have a pragmatic obligation since their mess affects the neighbours but what has US to do with Afghanistan today other than hunt for Al Qaeda? And my guess is that it is exactly what they'll do - Kill Osama and the next day pack up and leave. If Pakistan can sign the 10 year assistance deal now, that much the better for Pakistan.
Iraq may be a different case where US went in for no discernible reason without UN approval and may have to reconstruct, if for nothing else to clear their loss of reputation.
If US is being asked to pay in Afghanistan, it sounds like blackmail. Either you pay us or we'll attack Pakistan (or US or whoever). The same game gets played against US by North Korea (where the US actually stayed back) - "You guys are in South Korea so you give us free food and money or we'll test some missiles over Japan Sea".
Giving anybody money without strings attached is just asking for that money to be used against the donor. Stay back and build (roads, hospitals etc.) or fund through international bodies (like IMF,World Bank) with supervisory abilities etc. but not otherwise.
I don't mean to be rude or blunt, but I think it is the pragmatic way to look at things.
Last edited:
Similar threads
