The Road to Kabul Runs Through Kashmir

[jinxeD_girl]

Jinxed - you'll be the next one to get banned if you don't drop this ethnicity based diatribe and continued off topic bickering.

Ok Sorry

 

[TruthHurts]

And what exactly are you trying to do with the above stunt of falsely inserting my name into Jinxed_girl's comments?

It was a mistake, calm down. I had copied your username and pasted when it should have been her username. Take it easy,. I fixed it,

Not only do you engage in derogatory diatribes against other nations and ethnicities, but also blatantly distort and falsify comments made on this forum.

I can debate the above for my interest, But I'd choose not too. Take it easy and calm down, my intentions are not what you think. S.

No hard feelings here. More like a Miscommunication.

 

[jinxeD_girl]

It was a mistake, calm down. I had copied your username and pasted when it should have been her username. Take it easy,. I fixed it,


I can debate the above for my interest, But I'd choose not too. Take it easy and calm down, my intentions are not what you think. Stop the power-trip and we are all good.

No hard feeling here.

Agnostic Muslim... Why don't you ban this guy? On Afghan forums they have zero tolerance for Pakistanis and Iranians... You guyz are too lenient with Afghans on this forum.

Neither you ban him nor let me reply back to him.

 

[HAIDER]

@jinXed..its pointless to argue, If you live in US, you will find more then 80% Afghan immigrants came through Pakistan on refugee status, but so much venom against Pakistan. Really don't understand. Whats their problem.

 

[TruthHurts]

Once again, as an American I have nothing against Pakistan or Afghanistan. Cut off, this Pak vs Afg talk, Afghans put the A in Pakistan regardless according to Chowdhury Rehmat Ali. There are nearly 30million Afghans(Pashtuns) So you are stuck with them for the rest of your lives, they even have their own province, which is also known as Afghania(A name proposal from N.W.F.P) or Pashtunkhwa.


Anyways,

Although early records are vague or nonexistent, the first Afghans to reach U.S. shores probably arrived in the 1920s or 1930s. It is known that a group of 200 Pushtuns came to the United States in 1920. Some of them, however, were probably Afghan citizens. Early Afghan immigrants to the United States were from the upper classes, highly educated, and had trained in a profession. Most of these immigrants in the 1930s and 1940s arrived alone or in family groups and some were married to Europeans.

Read more: Afghan Americans - History, Modern era, The first afghans in america, Significant immigration waves, Settlement patterns

Afghans have been in the U.S.A, before Pakistan was even a nation. They came here as an upper-class and educated, It was only the 1980's when the soviets were at war when U.S.A gladly embraced Afghans. Presently, they are prominent businessmen in the U.S.A and own thousands of stores.


Anyways, nice meeting you guys all.

 

[deltacamelately]

AM,

I didn't quite understand why you deleted my 2 posts with the following remarks - This message has been deleted by AgNoStIc MuSliM. Reason: pointless/flames/derogatory/off topic etc.

I would have liked you to tell me what derogatory stuff did you discover.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

AM,

I didn't quite understand why you deleted my 2 posts with the following remarks - This message has been deleted by AgNoStIc MuSliM. Reason: pointless/flames/derogatory/off topic etc.

I would have liked you to tell me what derogatory stuff did you discover.

Just a whole series of posts that were off topic and responses to off topic posts. Not every reason in there applies to every post, hence the use of the forward slash.

I don't have time to provide separate reasons for every post when such a large number have to be deleted.

 

[deltacamelately]

Wouldn't call it very deft moderation though....

 

[Ahmad]

Agnostic Muslim... Why don't you ban this guy? On Afghan forums they have zero tolerance for Pakistanis and Iranians... You guyz are too lenient with Afghans on this forum.

Neither you ban him nor let me reply back to him.

Any forum which is not tolerant to other people's ideas will lose its credibility automatically. Let people express themselves no matter how wrong or right they are. As long as people dont insult each other, they should be allowed to have their say.

 

[wiseone2]

The Road to Kabul Runs Through Kashmir
By Jonathan Tepperman | NEWSWEEK

Published Feb 11, 2010

From the magazine issue dated Feb 22, 2010

Sometime in the last year, secret back-channel talks between India and Pakistan over Kashmir restarted, say U.S. and Indian sources. The countries last held such talks under Gen. Pervez Musharraf, and were reportedly on the verge of a breakthrough when Musharraf was ousted in August 2008. Then the Mumbai terror attacks that November badly frayed relations. For negotiations to resume now—open talks are also being discussed—would represent a huge boon for the region.

And not just there. The payoff would stretch all the way to Washington. Peace between India and Pakistan could help unlock another conflict with even higher stakes for the United States: the war in Afghanistan. Indeed, a growing chorus of experts has begun arguing that the road to Kabul runs through Kashmir—that the U.S. will never stabilize the former without peace in the latter. Suddenly, bringing India and Pakistan together seems to be very much in America's interest. Which makes the Obama administration's determination to avoid the issue increasingly hard to fathom.

To understand why Kashmir is so important to Afghanistan, start with the fact that the U.S. can't defeat the Afghan insurgency without Pakistan's help. Pakistan midwifed the Taliban and continues to provide it with shelter (and, allegedly, support). And that won't change until Pakistan resolves its rivalry with India. For Pakistan's Afghan strategy is based on the idea that it needs a pliant regime there to give it "strategic depth": room to retreat in case of an Indian invasion. Fear of India also keeps Pakistan from putting enough troops on its 2,250-kilometer-long Afghan border, which the Taliban still cross at will. As Strobe Talbott, who was Bill Clinton's envoy to India and Pakistan, says, "The Pakistani military is so obsessed with India that it hinders their ability to deal with other real threats." The only thing that might ease that obsession is peace with New Delhi.

Given this, you'd expect the Obama team to be pushing the peace process forward. Instead, it has studiously avoided the issue. On one level that makes sense: Washington has its hands full, and India, thanks to its bad experience with past mediation and America's Cold War tilt toward Pakistan, erupts with rage whenever the U.S. hints it might get involved. In 2008, when Obama said he might include India in the mandate of his AfPak team, New Delhi raised such hell that the matter was dropped. Thus Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. AfPak envoy, refuses to consider U.S. involvement today.

Yet even he concedes that Kashmir makes Afghanistan "more difficult to resolve," and Washington simply can't afford to avoid it if it hopes to leave the region any time soon.

Now it may not have to. The possible resumption of India-Pakistan talks suggests a growing constituency for peace on both sides. India, preoccupied with its economic boom, is especially eager to make the issue go away. A hard push from Washington could make the difference—especially if handled in a way that assuages India's fears. Obama has been much cooler toward New Delhi than Bush was. Were he to symbolically elevate the U.S.-India relationship to the level of the U.S.-China dialogue, it could give Washington much greater leeway on Kashmir. So would pressing Pakistan to cooperate on the Mumbai terrorists. Better still would be helping New Delhi grab two prizes it desperately covets: entry into the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council. As Sumit Ganguly of Indiana University puts it, "If that were to happen, India would roll over on any issue." Washington would still need to get Islamabad on board. But Pakistan has long favored U.S. mediation, and with its rival embracing talks, it might find it too awkward to refuse.

This message seems finally to be sinking in in Washington: as one high-level U.S. official recently told me, "People keep saying we have to deal with Kashmir. The buzz is in the air, and it's not like we're not hearing it." Let's hope they listen.

With Ron Moreau in Islamabad and Sudip Mazumdar in New Delhi

The Road to Kabul Runs Through Kashmir - Newsweek.com

American concessions on NPT or UN Security Council have to accepted by other powers. China's NSG veto demonstrates it is not easy.

Americans lost the war in Afghanistan when they did not strike Pakistan in the days after September 11th.

 

[Asian.Century]

Opposing oppression: Shahbaz links regional peace to Kashmir solution

LAHORE:

Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif on Friday condemned Indian atrocities in Indian-held Kashmir (IHK) and said that a solution to the problem was essential for durable peace in South Asia.


In a statement issued on Friday, the chief minister said: “Solution to Kashmir problem in the light of UN resolutions and according to the aspirations of Kashmiri people is the need of the hour.” He said India had been using pellet guns to suppress the freedom movement in the valley.

“The Indian army has unleashed cruelty and oppression against Kashmiri people. India, which claims to be a secular country, is violating all human rights in the occupied Kashmir,” Sharif said. He accused India of suppressing the just struggle of Kashmiri people by resorting to atrocities.

“The martyrdom of [Hizbul Mujahideen’s] Burhan Wani has proved that the desire for freedom is in the blood of Kashmiris. They cannot be denied their right to self-determination any longer,” Sharif said, stressing upon the world community to take notice of cruelties and brutalities against unarmed Kashmiri people. He said the people of Pakistan stood by their Kashmiri brethren and would continue to extend moral, political and diplomatic support to them.

Terrorism

“Efforts against terrorism and extremism are yielding positive results. Pakistan Army has made great advances in Operation Zarb-i-Azb,” the chief minister said during a meeting with a delegation of elected representatives. He said the country’s armed forces had broken the back of terrorists. The terrorists and their facilitators had now no place to hide, he said.

Sharif said peace had restored in the country due to efforts of the army and law enforcement agencies. “Political and military leaders and the nation is united in the country’s war against terrorism. The National Action Plan against terrorism has helped achieved a safer and peaceful Pakistan.”

The chief minister said the war had to be won at all costs for the sake of future generations. The nation, he said, was committed to rooting out terrorism from the country. “The scourge of terrorism will be eliminated and the country will be made a haven of peace.” He said those who had sacrificed their lives in the war were national heroes and that the nation was proud of them. “Pakistan Army and law enforcement agencies have rendered innumerable sacrifices in this war. They have written a new chapter of courage and bravery.” He said the sacrifices would not go to waste.

Published in The Express Tribune, September 17th, 2016.

http://tribune.com.pk/story/1182845...hahbaz-links-regional-peace-kashmir-solution/

Thought its relevant to this thread so posted here.

 

[wiseone2]

As if Pakistan is the sole reason for your suffering. You are being used by all sides. People picking up guns and fighting ISAF and the US forces are Afghans after all. They can chose to not tow the Pakistani line and not fight (if you are implying that Pakistan is responsible for all of the Taliban insurgency). But why do they?

Secondly, under the garb of economic development (a short term benefit), what is the Indian purpose for investing in your country? Do you think anyone gives anyone anything for free? No. Its their national interests that are driving their desire to fund Afghanistan. The Indian interest is to guide your foreign policy to not accommodate Pakistan. Your country will eventually do what it must, but if being landlocked with Pakistan, there is no accommodation of Pakistan's concerns due to consideration for the Indian interests, there will be a problem.

If you really want to think it through, the only solution for Afghanistan is to tell both Pakistan and India to take their problems outside of your country. This would be a favour to both Pakistan and India in the long run.

As a Pakistani, I have no interest nor any desire to meddle in the Afghan affairs for as long as they do not impact Pakistan negatively. If Afghanistan takes the neutral approach vis-a-vis Pakistan and India, Pakistan's policy in Afghanistan will automatically become passive.

Pakistan support for the Taliban started in mid-1990s. I think Pakistani strategic depth in Afghanistan is a higher priority for the army establishment over Kashmir. Actions of your government speak for yourself. Do not tell me your army could not cut a deal with the Americans on Afghanistan