AstanoshKhan
<b>PTI: NAYA PAKISTANI</b>
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2009
- Messages
- 3,134
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
Other people may be there to help us, teach us, guide us along our path, but the lesson to be learned is always ours.
US involved in secret talks with senior Taliban
- Thread starter Spring Onion
- Start date
Other people may be there to help us, teach us, guide us along our path, but the lesson to be learned is always ours.
Spring Onion
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 41,403
- Reaction score
- 19
- Country
- Location
Its not point of being saint or not. India is not at all a player in this game. India was rather and now too eating the left over prey.
Getting infulence if one thing and fomenting terrorim is another.
Taking along all sections along is a long term solution.
We were also working on the same theory so dont worry.
Like what? the most we have seen whenever there is any chance or step by US and others to come to dialogue table with all parties from Afghanistan, The Indians start derailing by crying .
we have direct right to question role of India in terrorism in Pakistan using Afghanistan soil.
Afghanistan-Pakistan peace is linked.
When we have a legal Afghan government with all sides on board then we will talk about that. currently there is none. Neither we can over look Indian terrorism in Pakistan.
@Jana
Let the Afghans decide wether they want Indians to be there or not. They are there on the request of the Afghan government after all and many opinion polls have shown that the average Afghan is very appreciative of Indian developmental efforts.
---------- Post added at 06:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:10 AM ----------
US Cautious on Afghan Outreach to Taliban | USA | English
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Monday that the United States is open to the prospect of Afghan government peace talks with elements of the Taliban, but she advised Kabul officials to proceed cautiously. Clinton spoke in advance of another top-level White House meeting convened by President Obama on whether he should send thousands more U.S. troops to Afghanistan.
The Obama administration is giving a cautious nod of approval to possible peace contacts between the Kabul government and Taliban factions, as it nears a decision on whether to add as many as 40,000 troops to the Afghan war effort.
A spokesman for Afghan President Hamid Karzai said Sunday that the Afghan leader, newly sworn in to a second term in office, might invite Taliban elements and other militant opponents of the government to a Loya Jirga, or grand council meeting, aimed at bringing peace and reconciliation to the war-torn country.
At a press event with Bulgarian Foreign Minister Rumiana Zheleva, Clinton said the United States backs the concept of outreach to the Taliban, but that Kabul authorities should proceed with caution.
"Obviously, we are going to ask questions about how it proceeds," said Hillary Clinton. "But the general idea of exploring this is one that we have been open to. With respect to the outcome of any such discussions, however, we have urged caution and real standards that are expected to be met by anyone who is engaged in these conversations, so that whatever process there is can actually further the stability and peace of Afghanistan, not undermine it."
In a separate press event here, U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke said the United States has had no direct contact with the Taliban but that it is supportive of Saudi efforts - requested by President Karzai - to broker peace contacts between the Afghan sides.
Holbrooke, who accompanied Clinton on her trip to Afghanistan for Mr. Karzai's swearing-in last week, said U.S. terms for dealing with Taliban supporters remain the same as when the secretary outlined them in a policy speech in July.
"She laid out the conditions by which the U.S. believes people fighting with the Taliban can rejoin, reintegrate into Afghan society," said Richard Holbrooke. "And the first point she mentioned was renounce al-Qaida. Remember and never forget, we are in Afghanistan because of 9/11 [the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States]. And the other thing was to renounce violence and to lay down their arms and participate in life peacefully. In fact, many, many Taliban have done that since 2002."
The length of the Obama administration's review of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan has drawn criticism from Republican lawmakers and others as a reflection of top-level indecision. But Holbrooke said the care being given to the issue is to be commended, not criticized.
"This is the most thorough, most sustained, most thoughtful process I have ever seen," he said. "And over the long course of it, we have all learned a great deal from each other, in a way which I think is exactly the way decisions should be made."
White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs said Monday the President could announce his decision on Afghan troop levels as soon as next week.
Let the Afghans decide wether they want Indians to be there or not. They are there on the request of the Afghan government after all and many opinion polls have shown that the average Afghan is very appreciative of Indian developmental efforts.
---------- Post added at 06:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:10 AM ----------
US Cautious on Afghan Outreach to Taliban | USA | English
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Monday that the United States is open to the prospect of Afghan government peace talks with elements of the Taliban, but she advised Kabul officials to proceed cautiously. Clinton spoke in advance of another top-level White House meeting convened by President Obama on whether he should send thousands more U.S. troops to Afghanistan.
The Obama administration is giving a cautious nod of approval to possible peace contacts between the Kabul government and Taliban factions, as it nears a decision on whether to add as many as 40,000 troops to the Afghan war effort.
A spokesman for Afghan President Hamid Karzai said Sunday that the Afghan leader, newly sworn in to a second term in office, might invite Taliban elements and other militant opponents of the government to a Loya Jirga, or grand council meeting, aimed at bringing peace and reconciliation to the war-torn country.
At a press event with Bulgarian Foreign Minister Rumiana Zheleva, Clinton said the United States backs the concept of outreach to the Taliban, but that Kabul authorities should proceed with caution.
"Obviously, we are going to ask questions about how it proceeds," said Hillary Clinton. "But the general idea of exploring this is one that we have been open to. With respect to the outcome of any such discussions, however, we have urged caution and real standards that are expected to be met by anyone who is engaged in these conversations, so that whatever process there is can actually further the stability and peace of Afghanistan, not undermine it."
In a separate press event here, U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke said the United States has had no direct contact with the Taliban but that it is supportive of Saudi efforts - requested by President Karzai - to broker peace contacts between the Afghan sides.
Holbrooke, who accompanied Clinton on her trip to Afghanistan for Mr. Karzai's swearing-in last week, said U.S. terms for dealing with Taliban supporters remain the same as when the secretary outlined them in a policy speech in July.
"She laid out the conditions by which the U.S. believes people fighting with the Taliban can rejoin, reintegrate into Afghan society," said Richard Holbrooke. "And the first point she mentioned was renounce al-Qaida. Remember and never forget, we are in Afghanistan because of 9/11 [the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States]. And the other thing was to renounce violence and to lay down their arms and participate in life peacefully. In fact, many, many Taliban have done that since 2002."
The length of the Obama administration's review of U.S. strategy in Afghanistan has drawn criticism from Republican lawmakers and others as a reflection of top-level indecision. But Holbrooke said the care being given to the issue is to be commended, not criticized.
"This is the most thorough, most sustained, most thoughtful process I have ever seen," he said. "And over the long course of it, we have all learned a great deal from each other, in a way which I think is exactly the way decisions should be made."
White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs said Monday the President could announce his decision on Afghan troop levels as soon as next week.
ek_indian
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2009
- Messages
- 1,514
- Reaction score
- 0
Let's assume the same what you are trying to say. But there is no proof of any Indian involvement.
Accusation without proof.
My best wishes for peace. This is what a win-win situation.
Please give some links regarding this. I am curiuos.
And Pakistan also cries whenever India announces any plan for Afghanistan.
Sure Pakistan have the right. But it is doing without evidences for long which is actually undermining the Pakistan's reputation.
Again accusation without any proof.
Spring Onion
PDF VETERAN
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 41,403
- Reaction score
- 19
- Country
- Location
America in secret dialogue with Afghan Taliban
* TV channel claims Saudis, Pakistanis, Afghan leaders assisting talks * Crucial meeting possible after Eidul Azha
Daily Times Monitor
LAHORE: The Obama administration is engaging the Afghan Taliban in secret talks with the help of Britain, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, a private TV channel reported on Monday.
According to the channel, sources said that eight years after the US-led invasion of Afghanistan, the US was engaging top Afghan Taliban leaders in talks.
Abdullah Ans, son-in-law of Abdullah Azaam, who is Osama Bin Ladins mentor and the main proponent of the philosophy of jihad; a Saudi resident identified as Abul Hasan Maddi, who is also a key member of Rata Alam-e-Islami; and an Iraqi national identified as Abu Jood Mehmood Samrai have been involved in the secret talks.
In addition to these people, Harkatul Mujahideen chief Fazalur Rehman Khalil is also assisting in the talks, said the channel. The channel reported that these people were engaging the Taliban in Afghanistan, and they may have crucial meeting in Afghanistan after Eidul Azha.
The sources said the Saudi and Pakistani authorities were also trying to engage the Taliban in talks.
Taliban leader Mullah Omar has nominated his shadow foreign minister, Agha Muhtisam, to hold negotiations on behalf of the Taliban. The channel said the Americans who now wanted to resolve the Afghan crisis through talks were not directly talking to the Afghan Taliban.
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
* TV channel claims Saudis, Pakistanis, Afghan leaders assisting talks * Crucial meeting possible after Eidul Azha
Daily Times Monitor
LAHORE: The Obama administration is engaging the Afghan Taliban in secret talks with the help of Britain, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, a private TV channel reported on Monday.
According to the channel, sources said that eight years after the US-led invasion of Afghanistan, the US was engaging top Afghan Taliban leaders in talks.
Abdullah Ans, son-in-law of Abdullah Azaam, who is Osama Bin Ladins mentor and the main proponent of the philosophy of jihad; a Saudi resident identified as Abul Hasan Maddi, who is also a key member of Rata Alam-e-Islami; and an Iraqi national identified as Abu Jood Mehmood Samrai have been involved in the secret talks.
In addition to these people, Harkatul Mujahideen chief Fazalur Rehman Khalil is also assisting in the talks, said the channel. The channel reported that these people were engaging the Taliban in Afghanistan, and they may have crucial meeting in Afghanistan after Eidul Azha.
The sources said the Saudi and Pakistani authorities were also trying to engage the Taliban in talks.
Taliban leader Mullah Omar has nominated his shadow foreign minister, Agha Muhtisam, to hold negotiations on behalf of the Taliban. The channel said the Americans who now wanted to resolve the Afghan crisis through talks were not directly talking to the Afghan Taliban.
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan
Roby
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2009
- Messages
- 887
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
US confirms Saudi role in talks with Taliban
WASHINGTON: US Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke has confirmed that Saudi Arabia has initiated a dialogue with the Taliban and that the United States would support any Saudi initiative.
Separately, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said that the United States is open to the prospect of Afghan governments talks with elements of the Taliban, but she advised Kabul officials to proceed cautiously.
As far as the Saudis go, (Afghan) President (Hamid) Karzai mentioned them by name in his speech. Its well known that he asked King Abdullah to play a role here, said Holbrooke when asked if the Saudis had initiated a dialogue with the Taliban.
I have talked to the Saudis. Ive been to Riyadh. I talked to King Abdullah about it myself. We would be supportive of anything that the kingdom chose to do in this regard, he added, while explaining how the United States viewed the Saudi-sponsored talks.
Asked if the British were also involved in these talks, Holbrooke said: I cant speak about the British. You have to ask them.
Meanwhile, Saudi newspaper Al Watan reported on Tuesday that the US Ambassador to Afghanistan, Gen Karl Eikenberry, held talks with the former Taliban Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mulla Mutawakil, in Kabul.
They exchanged views of their governments with the goal of ending the Afghan war.
The US ambassador offered to recognise the Taliban rule in several provinces, including Kandahar, Helmand, Arzakan, Kunar, and Nuristan.
In return, the US ambassador demanded that the militants stop their attacks on US forces and bases in the country.Mulla Mutawakil is now expected to convey the US initiative to Taliban leader Mulla Omar through his adviser Mulla Brader Akhond.
On Monday, DawnNews reported that high-level talks with senior Taliban militants were currently under way, indicating that the Obama administration might reverse course on its Afghan strategy which previously ruled out such contacts with the militants.
The indirect talks involve officials from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Britain, and top Afghan Taliban leadership, including the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen chief and Abdullah Anus, among others.
Diplomatic sources told Dawn in Washington that so far only middle rank Taliban leaders had come forward to participate in the talks. Any decisions made by these leaders will not have a major impact on the Taliban insurgency.
Besides, one of the negotiators, Samarai, was closely linked to Al Qaeda and the US would be reluctant to support any talks that involve Al Qaeda militants.
The sources also said the US ambassadors talks with Mullah Mutawakil might also fail to produce results.
Mullah Mutawakil, Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, the former Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, and Mullah Mohamed Tayeb Agha are looked upon by the Taliban leaders with disdain after they surrendered to the US early in the war.
Holbrooke, on the other hand, said the United States had had no direct contact with the Taliban but that it supported Saudi efforts, requested by President Karzai, to broker peace contacts between the Afghan sides.
DAWN.COM | World | US confirms Saudi role in talks with Taliban
WASHINGTON: US Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Richard Holbrooke has confirmed that Saudi Arabia has initiated a dialogue with the Taliban and that the United States would support any Saudi initiative.
Separately, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said that the United States is open to the prospect of Afghan governments talks with elements of the Taliban, but she advised Kabul officials to proceed cautiously.
As far as the Saudis go, (Afghan) President (Hamid) Karzai mentioned them by name in his speech. Its well known that he asked King Abdullah to play a role here, said Holbrooke when asked if the Saudis had initiated a dialogue with the Taliban.
I have talked to the Saudis. Ive been to Riyadh. I talked to King Abdullah about it myself. We would be supportive of anything that the kingdom chose to do in this regard, he added, while explaining how the United States viewed the Saudi-sponsored talks.
Asked if the British were also involved in these talks, Holbrooke said: I cant speak about the British. You have to ask them.
Meanwhile, Saudi newspaper Al Watan reported on Tuesday that the US Ambassador to Afghanistan, Gen Karl Eikenberry, held talks with the former Taliban Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mulla Mutawakil, in Kabul.
They exchanged views of their governments with the goal of ending the Afghan war.
The US ambassador offered to recognise the Taliban rule in several provinces, including Kandahar, Helmand, Arzakan, Kunar, and Nuristan.
In return, the US ambassador demanded that the militants stop their attacks on US forces and bases in the country.Mulla Mutawakil is now expected to convey the US initiative to Taliban leader Mulla Omar through his adviser Mulla Brader Akhond.
On Monday, DawnNews reported that high-level talks with senior Taliban militants were currently under way, indicating that the Obama administration might reverse course on its Afghan strategy which previously ruled out such contacts with the militants.
The indirect talks involve officials from Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Britain, and top Afghan Taliban leadership, including the Harkat-ul-Mujahideen chief and Abdullah Anus, among others.
Diplomatic sources told Dawn in Washington that so far only middle rank Taliban leaders had come forward to participate in the talks. Any decisions made by these leaders will not have a major impact on the Taliban insurgency.
Besides, one of the negotiators, Samarai, was closely linked to Al Qaeda and the US would be reluctant to support any talks that involve Al Qaeda militants.
The sources also said the US ambassadors talks with Mullah Mutawakil might also fail to produce results.
Mullah Mutawakil, Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, the former Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, and Mullah Mohamed Tayeb Agha are looked upon by the Taliban leaders with disdain after they surrendered to the US early in the war.
Holbrooke, on the other hand, said the United States had had no direct contact with the Taliban but that it supported Saudi efforts, requested by President Karzai, to broker peace contacts between the Afghan sides.
DAWN.COM | World | US confirms Saudi role in talks with Taliban
S-2
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2007
- Messages
- 4,210
- Reaction score
- 0
"On Monday, DawnNews reported that high-level talks with... middle rank Taliban leaders had come forward to participate in the talks. Any decisions made by these leaders will not have a major impact on the Taliban insurgency."
This article makes no sense. Mid-ranked taliban have ALWAYS been welcome to negotiate with the Afghan Gov't on their reconciliation and repatriation. High ranking taliban, whom ARE NOT participating per this article, have refused to negotiate with the Afghan Gov't until ISAF withdraws from Afghanistan.
Once that withdrawal takes place, high ranking taliban officials intend to negotiate with the Afghan government by the power of the gun.
Has ISAF withdrawn from Afghanistan?
Mullah Mutahwakil is utterly discredited as a taliban spokesman. He may be an excellent resource for contacts into the taliban but as a representative he holds no credence.
"Meanwhile, Saudi newspaper Al Watan reported on Tuesday that the...US ambassador offered to recognise the Taliban rule in several provinces, including Kandahar, Helmand, Arzakan, Kunar, and Nuristan."
Thus we would make no offer of such to Mutahwakil as he holds no authority within the taliban. Neither, and more importantly, does Amb. Eikenberry hold the authority to cede provinces of Afghan government to the taliban in exchange for peace.
Are there any more possible ways that this article and these discussions can be considered a canard? The U.S. government will ALWAYS talk with anybody to explore opening channels to discussions. Discussions DO NOT necessarily entail NEGOTIATIONS. There is a significant difference and it should be noted.
This article makes no sense. Mid-ranked taliban have ALWAYS been welcome to negotiate with the Afghan Gov't on their reconciliation and repatriation. High ranking taliban, whom ARE NOT participating per this article, have refused to negotiate with the Afghan Gov't until ISAF withdraws from Afghanistan.
Once that withdrawal takes place, high ranking taliban officials intend to negotiate with the Afghan government by the power of the gun.
Has ISAF withdrawn from Afghanistan?
Mullah Mutahwakil is utterly discredited as a taliban spokesman. He may be an excellent resource for contacts into the taliban but as a representative he holds no credence.
"Meanwhile, Saudi newspaper Al Watan reported on Tuesday that the...US ambassador offered to recognise the Taliban rule in several provinces, including Kandahar, Helmand, Arzakan, Kunar, and Nuristan."
Thus we would make no offer of such to Mutahwakil as he holds no authority within the taliban. Neither, and more importantly, does Amb. Eikenberry hold the authority to cede provinces of Afghan government to the taliban in exchange for peace.
Are there any more possible ways that this article and these discussions can be considered a canard? The U.S. government will ALWAYS talk with anybody to explore opening channels to discussions. Discussions DO NOT necessarily entail NEGOTIATIONS. There is a significant difference and it should be noted.
Rank
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2009
- Messages
- 10,771
- Reaction score
- 46
- Country
- Location
Well!
Why US talk with Taliban so called "Good Taliban" (There is no good bad taliban they are FREEDOM FIGHTERS.
Thats really bad news for Pakistan if you guys think LOGICALLY!
If US continue thr stay in Afghanistan (Without any reason) its make soo much problem for pakistan like in past and even in current situation especially. Actualy US BEGGING in front of Afghaniz because there so called WOT already fkd by Talibans (Even US have no object for fighting with them. US Object (Israel lobby) to destablize Pakistan especially Nuke Issue for protect Israel and In Iraq thr objective is "OIL". Talibans already kickd US *** in Afghanistan and Jihadiz in Iraq. US economy crisis increases daybyday and thy cant afford another WAR or continue this WAR. Last option is to QUIT from Afghanistan and if thy QUIT from Afghanistan than problem for INDIA will start and penetration of Indian involvment in the region will be lost for sure if US leave south Asia. Becuase of US here (US and Israel Support) India become a regional power otherwise look India even dont have guts to Attack on Pakistan so how India become a so called "Super power India" ?
If US leave Afghanistan then India (so called current power im pretty sure will be lost). Thats one Americans have 2 options in which thy already choose one "support power more n more India sellling State-Of-The-Art Weapons to India especially. Look India Head of State visit US after everyweek whats so special in US now ? Why Indians promoting everywhere on the websites even India test water Gun (toy) yahoo.com msn.com everywhere big boom announcments everywhere. Even lots of India Missiles, Tanks, aircraft test failed but still Penetration of Indian media and other Media (control by Zionist) promoting India everywhere?
My Opinion is its really bad if US Stay in Afghanistan. If Us quit from Afghanistan thn our situation will going towards better otherwise If US continue thr Stay in Afghanistan than our problem increasing day by day.
US actually use pakistan for thr objective (Talk with talibans through Pakistani officials). On the otherside US promoting selling weapons promoting business etc with India Why if we are ally of US thy never offer us huge amount of F16s, Apache, Cobra Gunships etc and about India who did nuthing for US why US promotiing thm ?? the active israely lobby! who have only 1 option to control this region by using anycountry and thy have only contact with India (Russia China Iran and Pakistan not really intrested in such bullshit WOT and thr objects only left INDIA who have contacts with Jewish zionist!
After huge amount of pressure from US public US govt look for Exit but how ? thy spends bn of $$$ on this BS WAr and if thy quit without achieving thr objective thats biggest SLAP on US Face so continue Israelly lobby BS thy are using now INDIA (thats old game of US selling state of the art weapon to any country and thn use that country for thr objectives so thats game on!!! with India now..
US MUST LEAVE FROM AFGHANISTAN ASAP!
Why US talk with Taliban so called "Good Taliban" (There is no good bad taliban they are FREEDOM FIGHTERS.
Thats really bad news for Pakistan if you guys think LOGICALLY!
If US continue thr stay in Afghanistan (Without any reason) its make soo much problem for pakistan like in past and even in current situation especially. Actualy US BEGGING in front of Afghaniz because there so called WOT already fkd by Talibans (Even US have no object for fighting with them. US Object (Israel lobby) to destablize Pakistan especially Nuke Issue for protect Israel and In Iraq thr objective is "OIL". Talibans already kickd US *** in Afghanistan and Jihadiz in Iraq. US economy crisis increases daybyday and thy cant afford another WAR or continue this WAR. Last option is to QUIT from Afghanistan and if thy QUIT from Afghanistan than problem for INDIA will start and penetration of Indian involvment in the region will be lost for sure if US leave south Asia. Becuase of US here (US and Israel Support) India become a regional power otherwise look India even dont have guts to Attack on Pakistan so how India become a so called "Super power India" ?
If US leave Afghanistan then India (so called current power im pretty sure will be lost). Thats one Americans have 2 options in which thy already choose one "support power more n more India sellling State-Of-The-Art Weapons to India especially. Look India Head of State visit US after everyweek whats so special in US now ? Why Indians promoting everywhere on the websites even India test water Gun (toy) yahoo.com msn.com everywhere big boom announcments everywhere. Even lots of India Missiles, Tanks, aircraft test failed but still Penetration of Indian media and other Media (control by Zionist) promoting India everywhere?
My Opinion is its really bad if US Stay in Afghanistan. If Us quit from Afghanistan thn our situation will going towards better otherwise If US continue thr Stay in Afghanistan than our problem increasing day by day.
US actually use pakistan for thr objective (Talk with talibans through Pakistani officials). On the otherside US promoting selling weapons promoting business etc with India Why if we are ally of US thy never offer us huge amount of F16s, Apache, Cobra Gunships etc and about India who did nuthing for US why US promotiing thm ?? the active israely lobby! who have only 1 option to control this region by using anycountry and thy have only contact with India (Russia China Iran and Pakistan not really intrested in such bullshit WOT and thr objects only left INDIA who have contacts with Jewish zionist!
After huge amount of pressure from US public US govt look for Exit but how ? thy spends bn of $$$ on this BS WAr and if thy quit without achieving thr objective thats biggest SLAP on US Face so continue Israelly lobby BS thy are using now INDIA (thats old game of US selling state of the art weapon to any country and thn use that country for thr objectives so thats game on!!! with India now..
US MUST LEAVE FROM AFGHANISTAN ASAP!
Last edited:
S-2
PROFESSIONAL
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2007
- Messages
- 4,210
- Reaction score
- 0
Mullah Omar, the taliban leader, has rejected talks with the Afghan government per the proposal made recently by Karzai in his inaugural address-
Afghan Taliban Chief Rejects Talks With Government- VOA November 26, 2009
Afghan Taliban Chief Rejects Talks With Government- VOA November 26, 2009
Yup , they are demanding full control
ISAF exit days numbered
and more civil war and bloodshed just as it used to be. perhaps thats exactly what people like you want, this is the difference between an afghan who is losing his daughters and sons and you who is only interested in proxy war under the mask of compasion and islam.
Rafael
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2008
- Messages
- 5,363
- Reaction score
- 1
- Country
- Location
When did he say he is interested in proxy wars and civil wars? stop putting words in his mouth.
and btw i didnt know that Afghanistan became "peaceful" and civil war came to an end under ISAF
When did he say he is interested in proxy wars and civil wars? stop putting words in his mouth.
and btw i didnt know that Afghanistan became "peaceful" and civil war came to an end under ISAF
he doesnt have to say it, all he means is that. he is praying for the taliban comeback and that is equal to civil war. afghanistan wasnt peaceful since the start of proxy conflicts in the country.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Imran Khan vs Pakistan: Protest of Treachery - Casualty Report
- Latest: Novus ordu seclorum
-
No Strings Attached: Discover Local Ladies in Your Town- Latest: rana.aamir2990
-
-
Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts
-
Imran Khan vs Pakistan: Protest of Treachery - Casualty Report
- Latest: Novus ordu seclorum
-
-
-
-
Bajwa calls Bushra's allegations against Saudi Arabia 'baseless'
- Latest: Novus ordu seclorum
