What's new

Will Afghanistan be safe/better off after US withdrawal in 2021?

Will Afghanistan be safe/better off after US withdrawal in 2021?

  • Yes, peace and prosperity will eventually return to Afghanistan

    Votes: 5 29.4%

  • Complete anarchy will follow

    Votes: 12 70.6%
  • Total voters
    17
ahsan17 said:
Won't be surprised if Taliban capture this equipment and as usual Indians get found out again in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

Someone else commented, the ammo was given as an amanat to be collected by the Taliban in a few weeks.
 
Outsiders cannot do much. It's up to the Afghans if they want to live in a free and secular country or live under Sharia.
 
Back to Square 1 in Afghanistan. That place is no hope for anybody - insider or outsider.

If China next decides to poke its nose in there, they'll have it coming as well.
 
Pakpak said:
Poor stuff from an otherwise quality poster.

Taliban are s.cum. Stone age morons who should be resigned to history. It doesn't change the fact that they have massive support from the locals. Otherwise with a superpower spending a trillion dollars would have destroyed them. Our nation, bankrupt as it is, is given too much credit for their mess.

People like Dostum rule with brutality. Rape kids, kill people. Which is why Taliban will exist. I'm not saying even documentaries from BBC and American channels say the same thing. Just Google it.

Taliban suffer ten times more body count than the Afghan army. If locals didn't keep replenishing their numbers they'd been extinct long ago.

I say the same thing about Balochistan. The minor trouble we have is, sure RAW meddling but because the locals are willing. It's the same in Kashmir.
Click to expand...

It is not possible to sustain any militant organisation without local support, be it the Kashmiri militant groups, the BLA, TTP and the Afghan Taliban is no exception to that rule as you rightly point out. But the question is not if the local support exists or not, rather if it is absolute and present throughout Afghanistan, it most certainly is not. When the TTP were in charge of the FATA and territories in KPK, the tribals were sympathetic to the foreign fighters in the TTP, which is how they were able to sustain. But just because tribal support existed didn't mean every Pashtun was supportive of the TTP in power, it's the same case here. Afghanistan has always been an ethnically fractured society with various militant groups representing each ethnic or ethnoreligious group, be it the Pashtuns, the Hazaras, the Uzbeks, the Tajiks, the Shias, etc., with each warlord managing to rule different parts of Afghanistan at some points in time, it didn't mean everyone in the area under the rule was supportive of that rule.

In fact, when the Taliban first came into the scene, they were popular precisely for the reason that they rooted out corruption, lawlessness and the streets became safe as opposed to the warlords of different ethnic groups. But gradually they started imposing the shariah and introduced laws prohibiting women's rights (compulsory burqa, restricting female education and representation) and public punishments like whipping, stoning, amputations, executions, etc. That is how their popularity waned among the populace and they were started being seen as no different to those ethnic warlords who preceded them. Most recent surveys among Afghans have revealed they were afraid of the Taliban coming to power and they were viewed as the biggest security threat. Now I'm fully aware surveys may not be fully representative of the Afghan sentiments and that the opinion in urban areas might differ from the opinion in the rural areas, and the sentiments in say Kabul might differ from the sentiments in Kandahar. But there is a reason why you often seen animosity from Afghans towards Pakistanis on social media and even in real world, the cricket world cup match being an example. That animosity was not due to a cricketing rivalry which Afghanistan and Pakistan don't share. Now I'm not defending the rowdy behaviour of the Afghan fans during that match, all I'm saying is that certain level of animosity exists which wouldn't if every Afghan was supportive of the Afghan Taliban, which is/was supported by Pakistan in the past.

But all said and done, the Taliban are a religious extremist group who want to impose a fundamentalist version of what they feel is right on the Afghan society. I do not want the Americans or any other foreign power to rule Afghanistan. Afghanistan is already a war ravaged country, the poorest in our part of the world, and all I'm saying is that any Afghan government democratically elected by the Afghan people would be better. When people say let Afghans decide who they want, the Taliban aren't exactly elected by the Afghans are they. There is no question of Afghans not letting an outsider rule here because the ones who are fighting the Taliban are not foreigners, they are Afghans too. Finally, even if entire Afghanistan wants the Taliban rule (which is not true), while they will obviously get what they want, I don't think people should necessarily be cheering that. Majority of India would probably want a hindu rashtra too, wouldn't make it anymore right just because the majority want it.
 
street cricketer said:
But there is a reason why you often seen animosity from Afghans towards Pakistanis on social media and even in real world, the cricket world cup match being an example. That animosity was not due to a cricketing rivalry which Afghanistan and Pakistan don't share. Now I'm not defending the rowdy behaviour of the Afghan fans during that match, all I'm saying is that certain level of animosity exists which wouldn't if every Afghan was supportive of the Afghan Taliban, which is/was supported by Pakistan in the past.
Click to expand...

What is that reason exactly? Social media is habituated by trolls, even on Pakistani sites you will always get anti-Pakistan posters camped on every forum or news site. Their whole premise is to stoke hatred against the country, and Afghans will be no different. You can bet the violence at cricket matches will have been stoked by social media trolls, and this narrative that it was Pakistan that created the Taliban and spread extremism in the country is typical of how they work. Although as you yourself have pointed out, there is no way the Taliban could be sweeping through the country without public support after being at war with the govt backed by the most powerful nations in the world.
 
Air Defences Installed At Kabul Airport As Taliban Gain Ground

The Islamic fundamentalist group's rapid gains in recent weeks have raised fears about the security of the capital and its airport, with NATO keen to secure a vital exit route to the outside world for foreign diplomats and aid workers.

Afghanistan's Kabul airport has been fitted with an air defence system to counter incoming rockets, officials said Sunday, as the Taliban pressed on with a blistering offensive across the country.
Washington and its allies are due to end their military mission in Afghanistan at the end of next month, even as the insurgents say they now control 85 percent of the country -- a claim impossible to independently verify and disputed by the government.

The Islamic fundamentalist group's rapid gains in recent weeks have raised fears about the security of the capital and its airport, with NATO keen to secure a vital exit route to the outside world for foreign diplomats and aid workers.

"The newly installed air defence system has been operational in Kabul since 2:00 am Sunday," the interior ministry said in a statement. "The system has proven useful in the world in repelling rocket and missile attacks."

Interior ministry spokesman Tariq Arian told AFP it had been installed at the airport, though officials did not offer details about the type of system or who had installed it.

The Taliban have regularly launched rockets and mortars at government forces across the countryside, with the jihadist Islamic State group (IS) carrying out similar strikes on the capital in 2020.

IS also claimed responsibility for a rocket attack this year at Bagram Air base, the biggest US military facility in the country, which was recently handed over to Afghan forces.

Over the years the US military installed several C-RAMs (Counter Rocket, Artillery and Mortar Systems) across its bases, including at Bagram, to destroy incoming rockets targeting the facilities, a foreign security official and media reports said.

The C-RAMS includes cameras to detect incoming rockets and alert local forces.

- From bad to worse -

Turkey has promised to provide security for Kabul airport once US and NATO troops leave next month.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Friday said Turkey and the United States had agreed on the "scope" of how the airport would be managed under the control of Turkish forces.

Taliban militants have waged a rapid offensive across the country, but mostly in the northern and western provinces, since early May, when the final US troops began leaving Afghanistan.

India on Sunday became the latest country to evacuate diplomats as the security situation deteriorates, with its foreign ministry saying it was pulling staff from its consulate in southern Kandahar, where the Taliban are fighting with Afghan forces on the edge of the city.

A security source added that around 50 Indian personnel, including around six diplomats, were brought home.

Last week Russia announced it had closed its consulate in the northern Afghan city of Mazar-i-Sharif, while China also evacuated 210 nationals from the country.

The fighting has led some veteran warlords to deploy militiamen to counter any attacks.

In the western province of Herat, where the Taliban this week captured a key border crossing with Iran, veteran warlord Ismail Khan mobilized his fighters in the provincial capital.

Pakistan's envoy to Kabul called on the international community to help strengthen Afghanistan's security forces, warning that deploying militia to fight the Taliban could worsen the situation in the violence-wracked country.

"If things translate into some kind of warfare between militias and Taliban, it will be dangerous," Mansoor Ahmad Khan said in an interview with AFP on Saturday.

"Therefore, it is important that Afghan government's capacity to defend these attacks and these security challenges is strengthened."

The Afghan government has repeatedly dismissed the Taliban's gains as having little strategic value, but the seizure of multiple border crossings and the taxes they generate will likely fill the group's coffers with new revenue.

The insurgents have routed much of northern Afghanistan in recent weeks, and the government holds little more than a constellation of provincial capitals that must largely be reinforced and resupplied by air.

https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/afghanistan-air-defences-installed-at-kabul-airport-as-taliban-gain-ground-2484103
 
Taliban fighters have surrounded the city of Ghazni in central Afghanistan, taking over civilians' homes to fight security forces, officials said on Monday, the latest urban centre under threat from the insurgents.

The offensive was the latest on a provincial capital as the Taliban make a fresh push to surround cities and gain territory, emboldened by the departure of foreign forces.

"The situation in Ghazni city is very critical...the Taliban use civilian houses as hideouts and fire upon the ANDSF (Afghan security forces), this makes the situation very difficult for the ANDSF to operate against the Taliban," said Hassan Rezayi, a member of Ghazni's provincial council.

Violence has surged in the country since US President Joe Biden announced in April that American troops would withdraw by Sept. 11, ending 20 years in Afghanistan.

The US general leading the war in Afghanistan, Austin Miller, is to relinquish command on Monday, in a symbolic end to America's longest conflict.

Peace talks between the Taliban and the government have nominally been continuing in Qatar's capital but officials say they are making little progress.

Locals said clashes between the two sides are also continuing in the southern province of Kandahar where the Taliban traditionally have had a strong presence and where special forces had been sent to defend the province.

Ghazni is on the main road between Kabul and Kandahar province.

"Since the past four days, armed Taliban are attacking...Kandahar city from the western direction," said Hamidzai Lalay, a former Member of Parliament who is fighting with armed men against the Taliban in Kandahar. "Afghan security forces, including special forces, are fighting the Taliban and trying to push them back."

Fawad Aman, a spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said the situation in Kandahar was "completely under control of ANDSF" which had carried out air and ground operations in recent days.

In central Bamyan province - usually comparatively free from conflict or Taliban presence - the Taliban took over Kuhmard district after security forces retreated, according to Humayoon Elkhani, the spokesperson for Bamyan province police.

So far, the Taliban has not been able to hold on to provincial capitals but they have put pressure on Afghan security forces to respond to offensives around the country.

On Sunday, security forces, with the help of air strikes, repelled an assault by Taliban fighters on Taluqan, the provincial centre of a key northern province bordering Tajikistan.

Last week, Taliban fighters entered the capital of the western province of Badghis, seizing police and security facilities and attempting to take over the governor's office before special forces pushed them back.
 
Until Afghan people reject the strict adherence to Islam and think about the future of their country and children seriously, nothing can ever change there. Afghans need a Ata Turk or a George Washington. Someone who can drag the country out of the tribal Islamic mindset.

West tried and they have realized that they cannot change the mindset of Afghans after 2 decades. It is not their duty to educate the masses in villages of Afghanistan. People need to pull themselves out of the deep hole they are in. No outsider can help if the people of Afghanistan are not willing to change.
 
Currently Afghanistan is ruled by various War lords in their respective ethnic areas (tajiks, Hazara, uzbeks etc) + the dummy central government that’s limited to Kabul only. There is nothing for the welfare and progression of ordinary Afghans out there.

Any change from this current state is a positive change. Talibans may religious hardliners but that’s not necessarily a bad thing if public benefits from the stability, state protection and proper law and order.
 
Varun said:
Back to Square 1 in Afghanistan. That place is no hope for anybody - insider or outsider.

If China next decides to poke its nose in there, they'll have it coming as well.
Click to expand...

You mean to say no hope left for Indians in there. Right..!

Good that India is realising its real place in the world affairs (i.e. on the margins)
 
Bi_Jamalo said:
Currently Afghanistan is ruled by various War lords in their respective ethnic areas (tajiks, Hazara, uzbeks etc) + the dummy central government that’s limited to Kabul only. There is nothing for the welfare and progression of ordinary Afghans out there.

Any change from this current state is a positive change. Talibans may religious hardliners but that’s not necessarily a bad thing if public benefits from the stability, state protection and proper law and order.
Click to expand...

Taliban may bring stability. But at a terrible price. Half of their country (Women) will suffer and they will remain illiterate. Taliban will not let any western education under their rule. Its Holy Quran or nothing. No country will invest in Afghanistan to benefit the locals.

Taliban is not a single unit. They are just small warlords who are grouped under the umbrella term Taliban. There will be fighting among themselves which means the country will be under internal war threat all the times.

The change needs to come from within the people of Afghanistan. No outsider or outside force can help them.
 
*Long post warning*

To answer the topic of the thread, you have to understand the great game in Afghanistan, for which you need to look at it from a geostrategic pov and not in a "good vs evil" view as almost every side looks for its own interests and there is no true "good and evil" concept in geopolitics.

The only povs you need to know about the conflict in Afghanistan are the povs of the three most important countries related to the region - Afghanistan, Pakistan and the USA.

The Afghan pov:
The roots of the conflict goes way back to the late 1800s when the British decided to demarcate British India from Afghanistan using the 'Durand line'. Now, the Afghans, like the Chinese with the McMahon line with India, have historically resented the Durand line as Pashtuns lived all over the western regions of Pakistan and large parts of Afghanistan, but they got divided by the line. The Afghan leaders have historically felt the region of not just the erstwhile NWFP, but also Balochistan belongs to them which is also why they passed the sole vote against Pakistan joining the UN after independence and supported the "Pashtunistan" movement to liberate what they perceived as Greater Pashtunistan. Mohammed Daoud Khan, one of the earliest prime ministers of Afghanistan was particularly interested in the Pashtunistan cause and supported insurgencies in the NWFP province of Pakistan initially.

Then when Pakistan merged all the provinces of West Pakistan into a single unit (to reduce the power discrepancy between West and East Pakistan) in 1955, Daoud Khan felt this as an aggressive move from Pakistan to absorb and marginalise the Pashtuns of NWFP and Afghan mobs ransacked the Pakistani consulate in Kabul. Later he would send Afghan troops to NWFP to liberate the Pashtuns twice, which prompted severing of relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan. This is when the Soviet Union grew close to Afghanistan and helped with exporting their produce by airlifting them.

The Pakistani pov:
As you know, India were strong allies with Russia after independence while Pakistan were in the American camp. Pakistan became wary of a Moscow-Delhi-Kabul axis developing and risk getting encircled on both sides by hostile nations and losing territory in the process to Afghanistan. This sentiment only worsened more when East Pakistan seceded and Pakistan realised even though it itself was a nation formed on religion, ethnicity seemed to matter very strongly in the case of movements for Bangladesh and Pashtunistan. Then Pakistani PM Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and the then ISI head Hamid Gul decided to respond by pushing for an islamist movement in Afghanistan to overthrow the Daoud regime. They did so because religious opposition would have broad appeal in an overwhelmingly muslim country without the implicit territorial threat of an ethnonationalist opposition. And that is how the Mujahideen movement started and the likes of Rabbani, Massoud and Hekmatyar came to the fore. The islamist movement slowly gained traction and Daoud Khan started imprisoning those who identified with an islamist cause.

The American pov:
Immediately after the end of the second world war, the US and the Soviet Union got entangled in a bitter cold war to gain as much influence throughout the world as possible. The Soviet Union wanted Afghanistan to remain as a buffer state between their central asian territories and Pakistan which was in the American camp. The Soviet engineered a coup by overthrowing Daoud Khan and bringing the communists to power in the 'Saur revolution'. The new Soviet backed communist leader of Afghanistan, Hafizullah Amin, was however a brute and alienated most of his allies through questionable policies and he didn't listen to the Soviet's orders either. The Soviet premier Brezhnev finally decided to invade Afghanistan and the Red army stormed the palace and executed Amin in 1979.

This was a turning point for the US because it had already lost its staunchest ally in the region due to the islamic revolution in Iran and didn't want to lose Afghanistan to the Soviets too. Pakistan also became insecure of a Soviet invasion of Pakistan to liberate NWFP and Balochistan and therefore decided to band together with the US to help liberate Afghanistan from the Soviet union by supporting the Mujahideen movement. The US, along with the Saudis, provided the funds, the US provided the arms while Pakistan provided logistics and training for the Mujahideens in the NWFP territory. Meanwhile the displaced Afghan refugees and their children poured into the NWFP territories and were educated in the several hundred madarassas that Zia set up for the cause of the original 'jihad', i.e., freeing Afghanistan of foreign powers, primarily the Red army. And they succeeded in doing so too.

When does the Taliban come into the picture?

Once the Soviet left, a power vacuum was created and different tribal warlords representing each community (be it the Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, Shias, etc.) started fighting with each other for control of territories. Pakistan initially supported Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's faction initially, but later they ditched him because Hekmatyar was a highly eccentric individual very prone to changing sides for his own benefit. All the tribal leaders while they fought for freeing Afghanistan from foreign occupation during the jihad, they were bit of ethnonationalists themselves and so the ethnic based territorial threat that Daoud Khan posed in the past would continue to remain.

And this is when the Taliban movement got started. The Taliban literally mean the students and Mullah Omar, the founder of the movement, was one of the fighters during the jihad and stayed in Pakistan during the same period. Later he joined one of the infamous JUI run madarassas in Pakistan which were primarily used for religious indoctrination of displaced Afghans to fight the Soviets during the war. The Taliban started initially as a movement of students in the seminary Mullah Omar later worked in Afghanistan and whose primary motive was to end the reign of terror of the tribal warlords and govern Afghanistan in the islamically sanctioned Shariah way. The tribal warlords were brutes themselves and engaged in a lot of corruption, opium mafia, pederasty (bacha bazi), all of which the Taliban ended to a large extent as they rose to power which increased their popularity among the local population. But the Taliban were primarily fundamentalists themselves and enforced an ultra strict version of shariah where women were obligated to fully cover themselves, were not allowed education after 10 years, and encouraged public amputations, executions, stoning, whipping, etc.

From the Pakistani pov, supporting the Afghan Taliban was best for them as the Taliban were primarily Islamists and not ethno-nationalists. Afghanistan under any nationalist will be problematic for Pakistan as the question of Pashtunistan would invariably emerge and Pakistan would be left defending both borders on the east and the west. Backing the Taliban was a safe option because they were islamists and not ethnonationalists and therefore didn't pose threat for their territories. And it is why Pakistan backs the Afghan Taliban to this day.

So how did the TTP emerge?

While the US evicted the Soviet union from Afghanistan (and later the threat of Soviet union was diminished after its collapse), it turned its attention away from Afghanistan to the middle east when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. But the Al Qaeda slowly started taking shape and gaining prominence in the Taliban governed Afghanistan. The Al Qaeda under OBL were initially Arab militants who travelled to Afghanistan for the cause of the jihad. They weren't involved in the war but mainly for funding purposes and it was the Afghans who mainly fought on the front lines. Not just the Arabs, but also a legion of foreign militants from Uzbekistan, Iran, Chechnya and even Uyghur militants joined the jihad during the Soviet Afghan war. Later when 9/11 happened and the Al Qaeda became a popular name in the media, the US decided to invade Afghanistan. The Tora Bora caves were known to house the majority of Al Qaeda fighters including OBL himself and the US bombed the caves with airstrikes in 2001, which led to numerous foreign militants (Afghans themselves plus the Arabs, Chechen, Uzbek, Uyghur militants, etc.) fleeing the cave complex into the FATA territories through the very porous Af-Pak border.

These militants gradually took control of the FATA and parts of KPK through power and tribal allegiance. The tribal leaders who resented the presence of foreign militants were assassinated without mercy. Many of the supporters of the foreign militants didn't view them as "foreigners" because they viewed them as the fighters for the cause of islam and islamism doesn't have national barriers. But this posed a problem for Pakistan because for the first time, supporting an islamist movement in Afghanistan to quell the nationalist threat from Afghan leaders had backfired on them when the TTP was created out of the militants who fled into the FATA region along with the tribals who were sympathetic to their cause. From the Pakistani government's pov, they were foreign fighters and issued an ultimatum for them to leave Pakistan as they felt they would cause problems in their territory. When they refused to leave, they took military action which caused friction between the tribals and the Pakistani military, which led to the creation of the TTP.

The TTP viewed Pakistani military as traitors for allying with the US which were fighting against the Taliban in Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks. And this only increased when Pakistani military asked the foreign fighters to leave their territory and took military action. The TTP also viewed the Pakistani establishment as an enemy for not enforcing shariah, as for the Taliban, national boundaries do not exist and they wanted shariah in all muslim lands (the siege of Lal masjid in 2007 had the same objective). This became a problem for the Pakistani establishment as they would want an islamist rule under the Afghan Taliban in Afghanistan as it would remove the territorial threat of a nationalist Afghan leader but it backfired when the TTP wanted an islamist rule in Pakistan too. The Americans wanted Pakistan to fight the Afghan Taliban, as they felt they supported the Al Qaeda. Pakistan on one hand couldn't move away from America as they were their main ally and arms supplier since independence, but also not stop support for the Afghan Taliban as it would be counterproductive to their geostrategic objectives. The US accused Pakistan of playing a double game but Pakistan played a double game because it helped fulfilling their geostrategic interests.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

To finally answer the topic of the thread, Pakistan's geostrategic needs have changed. The Americans have started leaving and the Americans are not their main partners anymore in terms of arms trade - China has assumed that position now. The Taliban are increasingly growing in power in Afghanistan and how long the Afghan government stands after the departure of the US is anyone's guess. So technically, Pakistan can support the Afghan Taliban with full freedom and the ensure a 'friendly' government in Afghanistan. They also have flushed out most of the foreign and native TTP fighters through Zarb-e-Azb operations in 2014. But the question remains what happens when the Afghan Taliban run amok in Afghanistan and start controlling the entire country. Would Taliban sentiments and ambitions rise again in the erstwhile FATA regions or seep through the Af-Pak border as Afghan refugees inevitably flood into the country as Taliban takes over?

My personal opinion is that Pakistan were probably left without an alternative to enter the Soviet Afghan war after the Red army invaded Afghanistan. But I also think while Pakistan, by supporting an islamist movement in Afghanistan over the years, has managed to quell the territorial threats of a "ethno-nationalist" Afghan government, it has also caused innumerable loss of lives, money and reputation through terrorism caused in their own territory as a result of the policies followed by their military establishment. Afghanistan are the poorest economy out of all countries in south asia and their biggest exports are probably apples and dry fruits. The Afghan military isn't even strong enough to defend their own territories from the rag tag militia of the Taliban and operate outdated weapons. So while Pakistan were probably forced to support the Mujahideens, they could have done without supporting the Taliban as doing so has caused more harm for themselves in their territory, than it would have if they had not done so. When they can defend their eastern border against a much bigger economy and military, I don't see why they couldn't have done so in their western border too against even a 'nationalist' Afghan government with rudimentary military and an inferior economy to themselves.
 
Last edited:
Cpt. Rishwat said:
What is that reason exactly? Social media is habituated by trolls, even on Pakistani sites you will always get anti-Pakistan posters camped on every forum or news site. Their whole premise is to stoke hatred against the country, and Afghans will be no different. You can bet the violence at cricket matches will have been stoked by social media trolls, and this narrative that it was Pakistan that created the Taliban and spread extremism in the country is typical of how they work. Although as you yourself have pointed out, there is no way the Taliban could be sweeping through the country without public support after being at war with the govt backed by the most powerful nations in the world.
Click to expand...

Indians and Pakistanis share much more venomous enmity on social media but you never see such violent fights between them in a cricket stadium. Also social media tends to operate in a bubble, not many in the outside operate twitter/other social media and so it is highly improbable that social media was the reason for causing such a huge fight.

Also Pakistan supporting the Afghan Taliban is not a fake narrative. They do so for their own geostrategic interests, which I have explained in my post above. Besides, Pakistan along with Saudi Arabia and the UAE were the only countries to recognise the Taliban rule in Afghanistan and the decision making cells of the Taliban are literally named the "Quetta shura", "Peshwar shura" and Miranshah shura. Pakistan support the Taliban in Afghanistan because they help their geostrategic interests, i.e., to keep the territorial threat of an ethnonationalistic government in Afghanistan, to keep India away from Afghanistan to use it against them and possibly use Taliban help in their proxy fight in Kashmir.
 
street cricketer said:
Indians and Pakistanis share much more venomous enmity on social media but you never see such violent fights between them in a cricket stadium. Also social media tends to operate in a bubble, not many in the outside operate twitter/other social media and so it is highly improbable that social media was the reason for causing such a huge fight.

Also Pakistan supporting the Afghan Taliban is not a fake narrative. They do so for their own geostrategic interests, which I have explained in my post above. Besides, Pakistan along with Saudi Arabia and the UAE were the only countries to recognise the Taliban rule in Afghanistan and the decision making cells of the Taliban are literally named the "Quetta shura", "Peshwar shura" and Miranshah shura. Pakistan support the Taliban in Afghanistan because they help their geostrategic interests, i.e., to keep the territorial threat of an ethnonationalistic government in Afghanistan, to keep India away from Afghanistan to use it against them and possibly use Taliban help in their proxy fight in Kashmir.
Click to expand...

Of course Pakistan will support the Taliban, as strict Muslims they will be less racist than secular Afghans and thus will look on Pakistan more favourably. Religion is restrictive in many ways, but for backward countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan it can be a binding factor which brings common ground. Anything which promotes peaceful co-existence should be encouraged, and who would blame Pakistan for encouraging friendly relations built on common religious ties?

Sadly the secular Afghans have a high proportion of animals who revel in violence. Comparing that to India/Pakistan cricket rivalry is disingenuous as both those countries have a far more peaceful philosophy and lifestyle. You only have to see the tribal warfare between ethnic groups in Afghanistan to see the truth of that. Why do you think many Afghans who are weary of all the blood letting and bacha baazi are welcoming Taliban to bring some form of order however restrictive?
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
Of course Pakistan will support the Taliban, as strict Muslims they will be less racist than secular Afghans and thus will look on Pakistan more favourably. Religion is restrictive in many ways, but for backward countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan it can be a binding factor which brings common ground. Anything which promotes peaceful co-existence should be encouraged, and who would blame Pakistan for encouraging friendly relations built on common religious ties?

Sadly the secular Afghans have a high proportion of animals who revel in violence. Comparing that to India/Pakistan cricket rivalry is disingenuous as both those countries have a far more peaceful philosophy and lifestyle. You only have to see the tribal warfare between ethnic groups in Afghanistan to see the truth of that. Why do you think many Afghans who are weary of all the blood letting and bacha baazi are welcoming Taliban to bring some form of order however restrictive?
Click to expand...

One common thread among pro-Taliban voices on this forum is that Taliban will unite Afghanistan and will reduce the tribal wars and bloodshed. A fairy tale portrayal of a good Islamic force. Whereas what I have read or seen in the various news channels and in newspapers is the exact opposite of that.

I am not well versed with the political situation between Pakistan and Taliban and I have no dog in this fight. Just feel that Anti-India or Anti-USA sentiments should not become Pro-Taliban sentiment. Its not a either this or that choice.
You can be Anti-both,
if it floats your boat.
 
Last edited:
Isis ttp attack in kurram agency telecom workers hostage rescue mission gone pear shaped 15 dead , and captain missing .

Told you get ready for Syria iraq like scenario in pakistan , all caused by our inept leaders and brainless generals.


We are losing soldiers every day now
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
Of course Pakistan will support the Taliban, as strict Muslims they will be less racist than secular Afghans and thus will look on Pakistan more favourably. Religion is restrictive in many ways, but for backward countries like Pakistan and Afghanistan it can be a binding factor which brings common ground. Anything which promotes peaceful co-existence should be encouraged, and who would blame Pakistan for encouraging friendly relations built on common religious ties?

Sadly the secular Afghans have a high proportion of animals who revel in violence. Comparing that to India/Pakistan cricket rivalry is disingenuous as both those countries have a far more peaceful philosophy and lifestyle. You only have to see the tribal warfare between ethnic groups in Afghanistan to see the truth of that.
Click to expand...

I doubt any Afghan is secular. Afghans are known to be very conservative, even those who don't necessarily agree with the Taliban. Afghanistan might have been secular (I still doubt it) under the communists like Hafizullah and Najibullah, but people forget that many of the leaders currently in power in the Afghan government were ex Mujahideens who fought during the Soviet war. Ethnonationalistic Afghans is probably the better word as the pan Pashtun sentiment runs across Afghanistan, particularly among their Pashtun population. It's not as if in a hypothetical scenario without the Taliban, Afghanistan is suddenly going to become a secular country.

Also captain, I don't agree when you say Pakistan is only looking for a common ground when it supports the Taliban in Afghanistan. It would make sense if Pakistan is under the Taliban rule too, but Pakistan has a democratically elected government in power and not a religious militant group. Sure, Pakistan too has elements of shariah included in its constitution, but it's a heavily watered down version and unlike the one that the Taliban uses. I mean, it's not like you see public amputations and whipping for theft and adultery on the streets of Lahore and Karachi. And it's not as if the women in Pakistan are obligated to wear the full veil all the times and restricted to getting education.

Why do you think many Afghans who are weary of all the blood letting and bacha baazi are welcoming Taliban to bring some form of order however restrictive?
Click to expand...

I'm yet to see where many Afghans are welcoming the Taliban. For every video of a few people welcoming the Taliban, there are many videos of people and even women taking up arms to defend themselves against the Taliban. Taliban increasing its territory doesn't mean everyone welcomes it with open arms just like the TTP when it rose to power in the north west provinces of Pakistan didn't automatically mean everyone in KPK was welcoming of the TTP rule.
 
street cricketer said:
*Long post warning*

To answer the topic of the thread, you have to understand the great game in Afghanistan, for which you need to look at it from a geostrategic pov and not in a "good vs evil" view as almost every side looks for its own interests and there is no true "good and evil" concept in geopolitics.

The only povs you need to know about the conflict in Afghanistan are the povs of the three most important countries related to the region - Afghanistan, Pakistan and the USA.

The Afghan pov:
The roots of the conflict goes way back to the late 1800s when the British decided to demarcate British India from Afghanistan using the 'Durand line'. Now, the Afghans, like the Chinese with the McMahon line with India, have historically resented the Durand line as Pashtuns lived all over the western regions of Pakistan and large parts of Afghanistan, but they got divided by the line. The Afghan leaders have historically felt the region of not just the erstwhile NWFP, but also Balochistan belongs to them which is also why they passed the sole vote against Pakistan joining the UN after independence and supported the "Pashtunistan" movement to liberate what they perceived as Greater Pashtunistan. Mohammed Daoud Khan, one of the earliest prime ministers of Afghanistan was particularly interested in the Pashtunistan cause and supported insurgencies in the NWFP province of Pakistan initially.

Then when Pakistan merged all the provinces of West Pakistan into a single unit (to reduce the power discrepancy between West and East Pakistan) in 1955, Daoud Khan felt this as an aggressive move from Pakistan to absorb and marginalise the Pashtuns of NWFP and Afghan mobs ransacked the Pakistani consulate in Kabul. Later he would send Afghan troops to NWFP to liberate the Pashtuns twice, which prompted severing of relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan. This is when the Soviet Union grew close to Afghanistan and helped with exporting their produce by airlifting them.

The Pakistani pov:
As you know, India were strong allies with Russia after independence while Pakistan were in the American camp. Pakistan became wary of a Moscow-Delhi-Kabul axis developing and risk getting encircled on both sides by hostile nations and losing territory in the process to Afghanistan. This sentiment only worsened more when East Pakistan seceded and Pakistan realised even though it itself was a nation formed on religion, ethnicity seemed to matter very strongly in the case of movements for Bangladesh and Pashtunistan. Then Pakistani PM Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and the then ISI head Hamid Gul decided to respond by pushing for an islamist movement in Afghanistan to overthrow the Daoud regime. They did so because religious opposition would have broad appeal in an overwhelmingly muslim country without the implicit territorial threat of an ethnonationalist opposition. And that is how the Mujahideen movement started and the likes of Rabbani, Massoud and Hekmatyar came to the fore. The islamist movement slowly gained traction and Daoud Khan started imprisoning those who identified with an islamist cause.

The American pov:
Immediately after the end of the second world war, the US and the Soviet Union got entangled in a bitter cold war to gain as much influence throughout the world as possible. The Soviet Union wanted Afghanistan to remain as a buffer state between their central asian territories and Pakistan which was in the American camp. The Soviet engineered a coup by overthrowing Daoud Khan and bringing the communists to power in the 'Saur revolution'. The new Soviet backed communist leader of Afghanistan, Hafizullah Amin, was however a brute and alienated most of his allies through questionable policies and he didn't listen to the Soviet's orders either. The Soviet premier Brezhnev finally decided to invade Afghanistan and the Red army stormed the palace and executed Amin in 1979.

This was a turning point for the US because it had already lost its staunchest ally in the region due to the islamic revolution in Iran and didn't want to lose Afghanistan to the Soviets too. Pakistan also became insecure of a Soviet invasion of Pakistan to liberate NWFP and Balochistan and therefore decided to band together with the US to help liberate Afghanistan from the Soviet union by supporting the Mujahideen movement. The US, along with the Saudis, provided the funds, the US provided the arms while Pakistan provided logistics and training for the Mujahideens in the NWFP territory. Meanwhile the displaced Afghan refugees and their children poured into the NWFP territories and were educated in the several hundred madarassas that Zia set up for the cause of the original 'jihad', i.e., freeing Afghanistan of foreign powers, primarily the Red army. And they succeeded in doing so too.

When does the Taliban come into the picture?

Once the Soviet left, a power vacuum was created and different tribal warlords representing each community (be it the Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, Shias, etc.) started fighting with each other for control of territories. Pakistan initially supported Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's faction initially, but later they ditched him because Hekmatyar was a highly eccentric individual very prone to changing sides for his own benefit. All the tribal leaders while they fought for freeing Afghanistan from foreign occupation during the jihad, they were bit of ethnonationalists themselves and so the ethnic based territorial threat that Daoud Khan posed in the past would continue to remain.

And this is when the Taliban movement got started. The Taliban literally mean the students and Mullah Omar, the founder of the movement, was one of the fighters during the jihad and stayed in Pakistan during the same period. Later he joined one of the infamous JUI run madarassas in Pakistan which were primarily used for religious indoctrination of displaced Afghans to fight the Soviets during the war. The Taliban started initially as a movement of students in the seminary Mullah Omar later worked in Afghanistan and whose primary motive was to end the reign of terror of the tribal warlords and govern Afghanistan in the islamically sanctioned Shariah way. The tribal warlords were brutes themselves and engaged in a lot of corruption, opium mafia, pederasty (bacha bazi), all of which the Taliban ended to a large extent as they rose to power which increased their popularity among the local population. But the Taliban were primarily fundamentalists themselves and enforced an ultra strict version of shariah where women were obligated to fully cover themselves, were not allowed education after 10 years, and encouraged public amputations, executions, stoning, whipping, etc.

From the Pakistani pov, supporting the Afghan Taliban was best for them as the Taliban were primarily Islamists and not ethno-nationalists. Afghanistan under any nationalist will be problematic for Pakistan as the question of Pashtunistan would invariably emerge and Pakistan would be left defending both borders on the east and the west. Backing the Taliban was a safe option because they were islamists and not ethnonationalists and therefore didn't pose threat for their territories. And it is why Pakistan backs the Afghan Taliban to this day.

So how did the TTP emerge?

While the US evicted the Soviet union from Afghanistan (and later the threat of Soviet union was diminished after its collapse), it turned its attention away from Afghanistan to the middle east when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. But the Al Qaeda slowly started taking shape and gaining prominence in the Taliban governed Afghanistan. The Al Qaeda under OBL were initially Arab militants who travelled to Afghanistan for the cause of the jihad. They weren't involved in the war but mainly for funding purposes and it was the Afghans who mainly fought on the front lines. Not just the Arabs, but also a legion of foreign militants from Uzbekistan, Iran, Chechnya and even Uyghur militants joined the jihad during the Soviet Afghan war. Later when 9/11 happened and the Al Qaeda became a popular name in the media, the US decided to invade Afghanistan. The Tora Bora caves were known to house the majority of Al Qaeda fighters including OBL himself and the US bombed the caves with airstrikes in 2001, which led to numerous foreign militants (Afghans themselves plus the Arabs, Chechen, Uzbek, Uyghur militants, etc.) fleeing the cave complex into the FATA territories through the very porous Af-Pak border.

These militants gradually took control of the FATA and parts of KPK through power and tribal allegiance. The tribal leaders who resented the presence of foreign militants were assassinated without mercy. Many of the supporters of the foreign militants didn't view them as "foreigners" because they viewed them as the fighters for the cause of islam and islamism doesn't have national barriers. But this posed a problem for Pakistan because for the first time, supporting an islamist movement in Afghanistan to quell the nationalist threat from Afghan leaders had backfired on them when the TTP was created out of the militants who fled into the FATA region along with the tribals who were sympathetic to their cause. From the Pakistani government's pov, they were foreign fighters and issued an ultimatum for them to leave Pakistan as they felt they would cause problems in their territory. When they refused to leave, they took military action which caused friction between the tribals and the Pakistani military, which led to the creation of the TTP.

The TTP viewed Pakistani military as traitors for allying with the US which were fighting against the Taliban in Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks. And this only increased when Pakistani military asked the foreign fighters to leave their territory and took military action. The TTP also viewed the Pakistani establishment as an enemy for not enforcing shariah, as for the Taliban, national boundaries do not exist and they wanted shariah in all muslim lands (the siege of Lal masjid in 2007 had the same objective). This became a problem for the Pakistani establishment as they would want an islamist rule under the Afghan Taliban in Afghanistan as it would remove the territorial threat of a nationalist Afghan leader but it backfired when the TTP wanted an islamist rule in Pakistan too. The Americans wanted Pakistan to fight the Afghan Taliban, as they felt they supported the Al Qaeda. Pakistan on one hand couldn't move away from America as they were their main ally and arms supplier since independence, but also not stop support for the Afghan Taliban as it would be counterproductive to their geostrategic objectives. The US accused Pakistan of playing a double game but Pakistan played a double game because it helped fulfilling their geostrategic interests.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

To finally answer the topic of the thread, Pakistan's geostrategic needs have changed. The Americans have started leaving and the Americans are not their main partners anymore in terms of arms trade - China has assumed that position now. The Taliban are increasingly growing in power in Afghanistan and how long the Afghan government stands after the departure of the US is anyone's guess. So technically, Pakistan can support the Afghan Taliban with full freedom and the ensure a 'friendly' government in Afghanistan. They also have flushed out most of the foreign and native TTP fighters through Zarb-e-Azb operations in 2014. But the question remains what happens when the Afghan Taliban run amok in Afghanistan and start controlling the entire country. Would Taliban sentiments and ambitions rise again in the erstwhile FATA regions or seep through the Af-Pak border as Afghan refugees inevitably flood into the country as Taliban takes over?

My personal opinion is that Pakistan were probably left without an alternative to enter the Soviet Afghan war after the Red army invaded Afghanistan. But I also think while Pakistan, by supporting an islamist movement in Afghanistan over the years, has managed to quell the territorial threats of a "ethno-nationalist" Afghan government, it has also caused innumerable loss of lives, money and reputation through terrorism caused in their own territory as a result of the policies followed by their military establishment. Afghanistan are the poorest economy out of all countries in south asia and their biggest exports are probably apples and dry fruits. The Afghan military isn't even strong enough to defend their own territories from the rag tag militia of the Taliban and operate outdated weapons. So while Pakistan were probably forced to support the Mujahideens, they could have done without supporting the Taliban as doing so has caused more harm for themselves in their territory, than it would have if they had not done so. When they can defend their eastern border against a much bigger economy and military, I don't see why they couldn't have done so in their western border too against even a 'nationalist' Afghan government with rudimentary military and an inferior economy to themselves.
Click to expand...

This is a great post.

Only thing is that TTP and Afghan Taliban don't have much of a connection. TTP were local warlords, like Muslim Khan, financed by outside forces partly and local forces partly with weapons who were terrorising people. They had local support as well in terms of manpower, I remember at one point entire nation was against the army operations.

Conflating the two is a bit false. Otherwise your post is POTW
 
Pakpak said:
This is a great post.

Only thing is that TTP and Afghan Taliban don't have much of a connection. TTP were local warlords, like Muslim Khan, financed by outside forces partly and local forces partly with weapons who were terrorising people. They had local support as well in terms of manpower, I remember at one point entire nation was against the army operations.

Conflating the two is a bit false. Otherwise your post is POTW
Click to expand...

No I did not conflate both the Afghan Taliban and the TTP together. They are two different entities, the only common thing between them is probably in their common allegiance to Al Qaeda and their opposition to the American presence in Afghanistan. They do have links together, but they aren't strong and there are instances when even the TTP bases in Afghanistan have been attacked by the Afghan Taliban forces.

The TTP was created as an opposition by the tribal warlords to surrender the foreign Al Qaeda militants like the Afghan, Arab, Uzbek, Chechen and Uyghur militants who took refuge in the Waziristan region of Pakistan, to the Pakistani military after the American airstrikes on Al Qaeda bases.
 
Last edited:
Ttp have links with the haqqani network

There is video of the deceased mullah sangeen and hakimullah together , the camp attack in khost by ttp was carried out jointly with al Queda.

Ttp are also sting links with locals in nagarhar and kunar.

Pashtuns have a code of honour in taking people who claim asylum .


It's delusions in pakistan who think afghan taliban will be friendly with pakistan , things have changed pakistan neither has the influence or respect with the Afghan taliban like it did in the past , because pakistan sold them out to the Americans.

Friends don't ditch their friends and then support the enemy to massacre them and provide all logistical support for the 20 + yr occupation of Afghanistan.
 
street cricketer said:
I doubt any Afghan is secular. Afghans are known to be very conservative, even those who don't necessarily agree with the Taliban. Afghanistan might have been secular (I still doubt it) under the communists like Hafizullah and Najibullah, but people forget that many of the leaders currently in power in the Afghan government were ex Mujahideens who fought during the Soviet war. Ethnonationalistic Afghans is probably the better word as the pan Pashtun sentiment runs across Afghanistan, particularly among their Pashtun population. It's not as if in a hypothetical scenario without the Taliban, Afghanistan is suddenly going to become a secular country.

Also captain, I don't agree when you say Pakistan is only looking for a common ground when it supports the Taliban in Afghanistan. It would make sense if Pakistan is under the Taliban rule too, but Pakistan has a democratically elected government in power and not a religious militant group. Sure, Pakistan too has elements of shariah included in its constitution, but it's a heavily watered down version and unlike the one that the Taliban uses. I mean, it's not like you see public amputations and whipping for theft and adultery on the streets of Lahore and Karachi. And it's not as if the women in Pakistan are obligated to wear the full veil all the times and restricted to getting education.



I'm yet to see where many Afghans are welcoming the Taliban. For every video of a few people welcoming the Taliban, there are many videos of people and even women taking up arms to defend themselves against the Taliban. Taliban increasing its territory doesn't mean everyone welcomes it with open arms just like the TTP when it rose to power in the north west provinces of Pakistan didn't automatically mean everyone in KPK was welcoming of the TTP rule.
Click to expand...

What else is Pakistan looking for then? Basically they just want a relatively stable neighbour which won't cause trouble. Pakistan may not be ultra conservative like Afghanistan, but neither is Malaysia or Indonesia, the idea would be that as a Muslim nation, Afghanistan should not be spreading nationalistic hatred like many secular Afghans do. I agree that secular Afghans aren't that great in number, but they tend to be very vocal and venomous, and with the power of social media, hatred gets amplified 200 fold.
 
Afghanistan will be screwed, they were screwed when US was there and they will be screwed again with the Taliban. Afghanistan is another cursed country to end up nowhere till the end of time.

However my real concern is, there is a reason for the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, something is happening in the South China Sea and Taiwan. Even Japan recently coming out in the open saying if China invades Taiwan, Japan will have to act militarily, they are not the ppl to say things like this.
 
Cpt. Rishwat said:
Basically they just want a relatively stable neighbour which won't cause trouble. Pakistan may not be ultra conservative like Afghanistan, but neither is Malaysia or Indonesia, the idea would be that as a Muslim nation, Afghanistan should not be spreading nationalistic hatred like many secular Afghans do. I agree that secular Afghans aren't that great in number, but they tend to be very vocal and venomous, and with the power of social media, hatred gets amplified 200 fold.
Click to expand...

I think we are mixing up terminologies here. Afghanistan is the last country I expect to be "secular", with or without Taliban. Indonesia is a muslim majority country but secular, just like the muslim majority central asian republics or Turkey for that matter. Indonesians are more likely to hold rebellious views on religion than their Malaysian counterparts. Malaysia's official religion is Islam and it is not a secular state. In fact, the state is openly against even other forms of islam like Shia islam and other sects, and deems that a person should be a muslim compulsorily to be considered an ethnic malay for availing its Bumiputera benefits. Pakistan is an islamic republic and has more islamic laws codified into its constitution like the blasphemy law, the anti Ahmadi laws and has the shariat court to decide whether laws are sharia compliant. It also has the hudood ordinances introduced by Zia, many of which have been either reformed or rarely implemented. All these countries are democratic republics however.

Afghanistan under Taliban though routinely execute public punishments based on shariah and is not a democracy as the Taliban leaders are not "elected" to power as in the other muslim countries. The leader of the Taliban is considered the Amir-ul-momineen and has unfettered power. So while all these are muslim majority countries, there are massive differences in their respective styles of governance from Indonesia on one end of the spectrum to Afghanistan at the other end. There are very little "secular" Afghans. The Afghans you are probably thinking about are religious muslims too and they wouldn't want a "secular" Afghanistan as in secular muslim states Iike Indonesia, Turkey or Azerbaijan. They just aren't supportive of the Taliban coming to power and enforcing harsh punishments on the public but would want something of a state similar in governance to what Pakistan is.

As for this question..

What else is Pakistan looking for then?
Click to expand...

Pakistan just doesn't want a nationalistic government in Afghanistan similar to its own style because such a government would invariably be at odds with Pakistan due to their differences in the perception of the Durand line. Just like how China claims territories in India like Ladakh, Arunachal Pradesh, etc., as its own due to its difference in opinion of the McMahon line, a nationalist government in Afghanistan would claim territories in Pakistan and that would be problematic from a Pakistani pov. A religious militant group in power in Afghanistan is much more suited to Pakistan's interests as the Taliban are not swayed by their ethnic emotions first but rather religion first and last. Otherwise Pakistan would be saddled by enemies on both sides.
 
Well yes precisely what I am saying. I don't know what form of Islam the other "religious" Afghans follow, but for Pakistan if the Taliban follow the correct form of Islam where they don't make war on other Muslim countries, that obviously makes them better neighbours.
 
street cricketer said:
*Long post warning*

To answer the topic of the thread, you have to understand the great game in Afghanistan, for which you need to look at it from a geostrategic pov and not in a "good vs evil" view as almost every side looks for its own interests and there is no true "good and evil" concept in geopolitics.

The only povs you need to know about the conflict in Afghanistan are the povs of the three most important countries related to the region - Afghanistan, Pakistan and the USA.

The Afghan pov:
The roots of the conflict goes way back to the late 1800s when the British decided to demarcate British India from Afghanistan using the 'Durand line'. Now, the Afghans, like the Chinese with the McMahon line with India, have historically resented the Durand line as Pashtuns lived all over the western regions of Pakistan and large parts of Afghanistan, but they got divided by the line. The Afghan leaders have historically felt the region of not just the erstwhile NWFP, but also Balochistan belongs to them which is also why they passed the sole vote against Pakistan joining the UN after independence and supported the "Pashtunistan" movement to liberate what they perceived as Greater Pashtunistan. Mohammed Daoud Khan, one of the earliest prime ministers of Afghanistan was particularly interested in the Pashtunistan cause and supported insurgencies in the NWFP province of Pakistan initially.

Then when Pakistan merged all the provinces of West Pakistan into a single unit (to reduce the power discrepancy between West and East Pakistan) in 1955, Daoud Khan felt this as an aggressive move from Pakistan to absorb and marginalise the Pashtuns of NWFP and Afghan mobs ransacked the Pakistani consulate in Kabul. Later he would send Afghan troops to NWFP to liberate the Pashtuns twice, which prompted severing of relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan. This is when the Soviet Union grew close to Afghanistan and helped with exporting their produce by airlifting them.

The Pakistani pov:
As you know, India were strong allies with Russia after independence while Pakistan were in the American camp. Pakistan became wary of a Moscow-Delhi-Kabul axis developing and risk getting encircled on both sides by hostile nations and losing territory in the process to Afghanistan. This sentiment only worsened more when East Pakistan seceded and Pakistan realised even though it itself was a nation formed on religion, ethnicity seemed to matter very strongly in the case of movements for Bangladesh and Pashtunistan. Then Pakistani PM Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and the then ISI head Hamid Gul decided to respond by pushing for an islamist movement in Afghanistan to overthrow the Daoud regime. They did so because religious opposition would have broad appeal in an overwhelmingly muslim country without the implicit territorial threat of an ethnonationalist opposition. And that is how the Mujahideen movement started and the likes of Rabbani, Massoud and Hekmatyar came to the fore. The islamist movement slowly gained traction and Daoud Khan started imprisoning those who identified with an islamist cause.

The American pov:
Immediately after the end of the second world war, the US and the Soviet Union got entangled in a bitter cold war to gain as much influence throughout the world as possible. The Soviet Union wanted Afghanistan to remain as a buffer state between their central asian territories and Pakistan which was in the American camp. The Soviet engineered a coup by overthrowing Daoud Khan and bringing the communists to power in the 'Saur revolution'. The new Soviet backed communist leader of Afghanistan, Hafizullah Amin, was however a brute and alienated most of his allies through questionable policies and he didn't listen to the Soviet's orders either. The Soviet premier Brezhnev finally decided to invade Afghanistan and the Red army stormed the palace and executed Amin in 1979.

This was a turning point for the US because it had already lost its staunchest ally in the region due to the islamic revolution in Iran and didn't want to lose Afghanistan to the Soviets too. Pakistan also became insecure of a Soviet invasion of Pakistan to liberate NWFP and Balochistan and therefore decided to band together with the US to help liberate Afghanistan from the Soviet union by supporting the Mujahideen movement. The US, along with the Saudis, provided the funds, the US provided the arms while Pakistan provided logistics and training for the Mujahideens in the NWFP territory. Meanwhile the displaced Afghan refugees and their children poured into the NWFP territories and were educated in the several hundred madarassas that Zia set up for the cause of the original 'jihad', i.e., freeing Afghanistan of foreign powers, primarily the Red army. And they succeeded in doing so too.

When does the Taliban come into the picture?

Once the Soviet left, a power vacuum was created and different tribal warlords representing each community (be it the Pashtuns, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras, Shias, etc.) started fighting with each other for control of territories. Pakistan initially supported Gulbuddin Hekmatyar's faction initially, but later they ditched him because Hekmatyar was a highly eccentric individual very prone to changing sides for his own benefit. All the tribal leaders while they fought for freeing Afghanistan from foreign occupation during the jihad, they were bit of ethnonationalists themselves and so the ethnic based territorial threat that Daoud Khan posed in the past would continue to remain.

And this is when the Taliban movement got started. The Taliban literally mean the students and Mullah Omar, the founder of the movement, was one of the fighters during the jihad and stayed in Pakistan during the same period. Later he joined one of the infamous JUI run madarassas in Pakistan which were primarily used for religious indoctrination of displaced Afghans to fight the Soviets during the war. The Taliban started initially as a movement of students in the seminary Mullah Omar later worked in Afghanistan and whose primary motive was to end the reign of terror of the tribal warlords and govern Afghanistan in the islamically sanctioned Shariah way. The tribal warlords were brutes themselves and engaged in a lot of corruption, opium mafia, pederasty (bacha bazi), all of which the Taliban ended to a large extent as they rose to power which increased their popularity among the local population. But the Taliban were primarily fundamentalists themselves and enforced an ultra strict version of shariah where women were obligated to fully cover themselves, were not allowed education after 10 years, and encouraged public amputations, executions, stoning, whipping, etc.

From the Pakistani pov, supporting the Afghan Taliban was best for them as the Taliban were primarily Islamists and not ethno-nationalists. Afghanistan under any nationalist will be problematic for Pakistan as the question of Pashtunistan would invariably emerge and Pakistan would be left defending both borders on the east and the west. Backing the Taliban was a safe option because they were islamists and not ethnonationalists and therefore didn't pose threat for their territories. And it is why Pakistan backs the Afghan Taliban to this day.

So how did the TTP emerge?

While the US evicted the Soviet union from Afghanistan (and later the threat of Soviet union was diminished after its collapse), it turned its attention away from Afghanistan to the middle east when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990. But the Al Qaeda slowly started taking shape and gaining prominence in the Taliban governed Afghanistan. The Al Qaeda under OBL were initially Arab militants who travelled to Afghanistan for the cause of the jihad. They weren't involved in the war but mainly for funding purposes and it was the Afghans who mainly fought on the front lines. Not just the Arabs, but also a legion of foreign militants from Uzbekistan, Iran, Chechnya and even Uyghur militants joined the jihad during the Soviet Afghan war. Later when 9/11 happened and the Al Qaeda became a popular name in the media, the US decided to invade Afghanistan. The Tora Bora caves were known to house the majority of Al Qaeda fighters including OBL himself and the US bombed the caves with airstrikes in 2001, which led to numerous foreign militants (Afghans themselves plus the Arabs, Chechen, Uzbek, Uyghur militants, etc.) fleeing the cave complex into the FATA territories through the very porous Af-Pak border.

These militants gradually took control of the FATA and parts of KPK through power and tribal allegiance. The tribal leaders who resented the presence of foreign militants were assassinated without mercy. Many of the supporters of the foreign militants didn't view them as "foreigners" because they viewed them as the fighters for the cause of islam and islamism doesn't have national barriers. But this posed a problem for Pakistan because for the first time, supporting an islamist movement in Afghanistan to quell the nationalist threat from Afghan leaders had backfired on them when the TTP was created out of the militants who fled into the FATA region along with the tribals who were sympathetic to their cause. From the Pakistani government's pov, they were foreign fighters and issued an ultimatum for them to leave Pakistan as they felt they would cause problems in their territory. When they refused to leave, they took military action which caused friction between the tribals and the Pakistani military, which led to the creation of the TTP.

The TTP viewed Pakistani military as traitors for allying with the US which were fighting against the Taliban in Afghanistan after the September 11 attacks. And this only increased when Pakistani military asked the foreign fighters to leave their territory and took military action. The TTP also viewed the Pakistani establishment as an enemy for not enforcing shariah, as for the Taliban, national boundaries do not exist and they wanted shariah in all muslim lands (the siege of Lal masjid in 2007 had the same objective). This became a problem for the Pakistani establishment as they would want an islamist rule under the Afghan Taliban in Afghanistan as it would remove the territorial threat of a nationalist Afghan leader but it backfired when the TTP wanted an islamist rule in Pakistan too. The Americans wanted Pakistan to fight the Afghan Taliban, as they felt they supported the Al Qaeda. Pakistan on one hand couldn't move away from America as they were their main ally and arms supplier since independence, but also not stop support for the Afghan Taliban as it would be counterproductive to their geostrategic objectives. The US accused Pakistan of playing a double game but Pakistan played a double game because it helped fulfilling their geostrategic interests.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

To finally answer the topic of the thread, Pakistan's geostrategic needs have changed. The Americans have started leaving and the Americans are not their main partners anymore in terms of arms trade - China has assumed that position now. The Taliban are increasingly growing in power in Afghanistan and how long the Afghan government stands after the departure of the US is anyone's guess. So technically, Pakistan can support the Afghan Taliban with full freedom and the ensure a 'friendly' government in Afghanistan. They also have flushed out most of the foreign and native TTP fighters through Zarb-e-Azb operations in 2014. But the question remains what happens when the Afghan Taliban run amok in Afghanistan and start controlling the entire country. Would Taliban sentiments and ambitions rise again in the erstwhile FATA regions or seep through the Af-Pak border as Afghan refugees inevitably flood into the country as Taliban takes over?

My personal opinion is that Pakistan were probably left without an alternative to enter the Soviet Afghan war after the Red army invaded Afghanistan. But I also think while Pakistan, by supporting an islamist movement in Afghanistan over the years, has managed to quell the territorial threats of a "ethno-nationalist" Afghan government, it has also caused innumerable loss of lives, money and reputation through terrorism caused in their own territory as a result of the policies followed by their military establishment. Afghanistan are the poorest economy out of all countries in south asia and their biggest exports are probably apples and dry fruits. The Afghan military isn't even strong enough to defend their own territories from the rag tag militia of the Taliban and operate outdated weapons. So while Pakistan were probably forced to support the Mujahideens, they could have done without supporting the Taliban as doing so has caused more harm for themselves in their territory, than it would have if they had not done so. When they can defend their eastern border against a much bigger economy and military, I don't see why they couldn't have done so in their western border too against even a 'nationalist' Afghan government with rudimentary military and an inferior economy to themselves.
Click to expand...

Great post. Agree with most with a few exceptions.

1) Areas of NWFP (KPK) and Balochistan became part of Pakistan due to the will of the people (even with a lot of lobbying by congress against it). So that should have quashed the whole ethno-Pashtun narrative of not recognizing the Durand line. It is like Indian side still thinking of Pakistan Punjab as part of greater Punjab post independence and vice versa.

2) I do not agree with your view on TTP. TTP is not an offshoot of Afghan Taliban. They came onto the scene around 2007 and not right after US Invasion in Oct 2001. They were propped up as a counterbalance to prod Pakistan to toe the US line and stop its "alleged" support for Afghan Taliban that was conducting an active insurgency against the US led coalition.
Below is a good primer on chronology of TTP and differences.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">TTA, TTP, ISIS / ISKP...a Thread.<br>Every time there is an attack on Pak SFs, a segment suddenly pops up incriminating TTA.<br>A lot of confusion exists wrt the term "taliban" in our public.<br><br>In this thread, I'll make an effort to explain it in Pak's NS perspective. <br><br>1/8</p>— Fawad (@Fawad__Ahmed) <a href="https://twitter.com/Fawad__Ahmed/status/1414920955860688904?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 13, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
cric_man said:
Great post. Agree with most with a few exceptions.

1) Areas of NWFP (KPK) and Balochistan became part of Pakistan due to the will of the people (even with a lot of lobbying by congress against it). So that should have quashed the whole ethno-Pashtun narrative of not recognizing the Durand line. It is like Indian side still thinking of Pakistan Punjab as part of greater Punjab post independence and vice versa.

2) I do not agree with your view on TTP. TTP is not an offshoot of Afghan Taliban. They came onto the scene around 2007 and not right after US Invasion in Oct 2001. They were propped up as a counterbalance to prod Pakistan to toe the US line and stop its "alleged" support for Afghan Taliban that was conducting an active insurgency against the US led coalition.
Click to expand...

1) I know that the majority of Pashtuns in Pakistan are pro Pakistani. I was not talking about 1947 but 1893 when Henry Mortimer Durand, a British Indian civil servant, established the border between Afghanistan and British India. When I say the word "liberate", I mean it from an Afghan pov.

2) I did not say that the TTP were an off shoot of the Afghan Taliban as they have different enemies and they themselves fight each other sometimes. I have explained it in my post to [MENTION=21699]Pakpak[/MENTION]

No I did not conflate both the Afghan Taliban and the TTP together. They are two different entities, the only common thing between them is probably in their common allegiance to Al Qaeda and their opposition to the American presence in Afghanistan. They do have links together, but they aren't strong and there are instances when even the TTP bases in Afghanistan have been attacked by the Afghan Taliban forces.

The TTP was created as an opposition by the tribal warlords to surrender the foreign Al Qaeda militants like the Afghan, Arab, Uzbek, Chechen and Uyghur militants who took refuge in the Waziristan region of Pakistan, to the Pakistani military after the American airstrikes on Al Qaeda bases.
Click to expand...

While the TTP had a lot of foreign militants in its ranks, most of its leaders were Pakistanis who were born and brought up in the tribal areas of Waziristan.
 
street cricketer said:
While the TTP had a lot of foreign militants in its ranks, most of its leaders were Pakistanis who were born and brought up in the tribal areas of Waziristan.
Click to expand...

Agreed - Mehsuds, Mulla Fazlluah (mastermind of APS attack) et al. But they were funded / armed / equipped by foreign powers. NDS (Afghan intelligence) was the front with blessings of the US & assistance from our eastern neighbors.
When Pak Army finally launched ZAr e Azab and started clearing areas. They will find huge cache of arms that included NATO standard field encrypted radios, Satellitle COMS, M249 SAWs, AT4 LAWs which seemed to have been just shipped from US or Afghan inventories.

Once Pak Army crushed them, remainder fled to Afghanistan and were provided cover by NDS with blessings from Uncle SAM. If US/Afghan Gov was so against alleged "terrorism", they would have crushed them to have a high moral ground on Pakistan.

Long story short, Pakistan will do whatever it can to make sure Afghanistan is not used to de-stabilize Pakistan.
 
cric_man said:
Agreed - Mehsuds, Mulla Fazlluah (mastermind of APS attack) et al. But they were funded / armed / equipped by foreign powers. NDS (Afghan intelligence) was the front with blessings of the US & assistance from our eastern neighbors.
When Pak Army finally launched ZAr e Azab and started clearing areas. They will find huge cache of arms that included NATO standard field encrypted radios, Satellitle COMS, M249 SAWs, AT4 LAWs which seemed to have been just shipped from US or Afghan inventories.

Once Pak Army crushed them, remainder fled to Afghanistan and were provided cover by NDS with blessings from Uncle SAM. If US/Afghan Gov was so against alleged "terrorism", they would have crushed them to have a high moral ground on Pakistan.

Long story short, Pakistan will do whatever it can to make sure Afghanistan is not used to de-stabilize Pakistan.
Click to expand...

Lol

If mullah fazlullah , baitullah , hakimullah and God knows which other Ullah were all killed by us drone strikes how could cia / nato / nds be supporting them and then killing their own assets .

Baitullah and hakimullah and most of the high profile mehsud fighters were all killed by us drone strikes in waziristan in cahoots with pak military .
 
mazkhan said:
Lol

If mullah fazlullah , baitullah , hakimullah and God knows which other Ullah were all killed by us drone strikes how could cia / nato / nds be supporting them and then killing their own assets .

Baitullah and hakimullah and most of the high profile mehsud fighters were all killed by us drone strikes in waziristan in cahoots with pak military .
Click to expand...

Just as Pakisatn handing over Taliban fighters to the US post 9/11.
 
mazkhan said:
Lol

If mullah fazlullah , baitullah , hakimullah and God knows which other Ullah were all killed by us drone strikes how could cia / nato / nds be supporting them and then killing their own assets .

Baitullah and hakimullah and most of the high profile mehsud fighters were all killed by us drone strikes in waziristan in cahoots with pak military .
Click to expand...
It wasn't the US; TTP was getting support from the NDS and they were busted by ISAF for escorting and supporting TTP leaders. Btw governments use and get rid of their assets all the time so I don't know why you're acting so naive.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/29/world/asia/us-disrupts-afghans-tack-on-militants.html
 
Giannis said:
It wasn't the US; TTP was getting support from the NDS and they were busted by ISAF for escorting and supporting TTP leaders. Btw governments use and get rid of their assets all the time so I don't know why you're acting so naive.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/29/world/asia/us-disrupts-afghans-tack-on-militants.html
Click to expand...
It was such a twisted war of interest that every side was playing double game with each other. Pak was US frontline non nato allie while keeping good links with Taliban as well, For US these some terrorist were freedom fighters vs Soviet, and even now their this so called war against terror Afghanistan was to have great influence and presence tu to counter Chinese and Russian influence and don't giving them freehand plus it's opium heaven and generated hell of black money. Taliban were fighting both the invading forces plus countless segments within Afghanistan for more control. Indians used this opportunity to put pressure on Pakistan on both borders. All this aid stuff was just cover up.
 
Chaman border closed amid reports of Taliban capturing crossing on Afghan side

The Taliban on Wednesday claimed they had captured the strategic border crossing of Spin Boldak along the frontier with Pakistan, continuing sweeping gains made since foreign forces stepped up their withdrawal from Afghanistan.

“The Mujahideen have captured an important border town called Wesh in Kandahar,” said Zabihullah Mujahid, a Taliban spokesperson in a statement.

“With this, the important road between (Spin) Boldak and Chaman and Kandahar customs have come under Mujahideen control,” he said. Mujahid assured traders and residents there that their “security is guaranteed”.

However, the Afghan interior ministry insisted the attack had been repelled and government forces had control.

Meanwhile, when contacted for a comment, Chaman Assistant Commissioner Arif Kakar told Dawn.com that security was on high alert. "The Friendship Gate at the Chaman border has been closed," he said. No comment has been made so far from Pakistan regarding the capturing of the crossing.

The situation on the ground could not immediately be verified, but according to AFP, social media was abuzz with pictures of Taliban fighters looking relaxed in what appeared to be the frontier town.

The taking of Spin Boldak would be the latest in a string of border crossings and dry ports seized by the Taliban in recent weeks.

Its seizure follows days of heavy fighting across Kandahar province, where the government was forced to deploy commando fighters to prevent the fall of the provincial capital even as the insurgents inched closer to taking the frontier crossing.

Afghan officials insisted they still had control.

“The terrorist Taliban had some movements near the border area [...] The security forces have repelled the attack,” interior ministry spokesman Tareq Arian told AFP.

Residents disputed the Afghan government's claims.

“I went to my shop this morning and saw that the Taliban are everywhere. They are in the bazaar, in police HQ and custom areas. I can also hear the sound of fighting nearby,” said Raz Mohammad, a shopkeeper who works near the border.

https://www.dawn.com/news/1635037/chaman-border-closed-amid-reports-of-taliban-capturing-crossing-on-afghan-side
 
Problem is the Afghan government itself is fragmented you have 2 presidents one in Ghani a foreign appointed stooge and then the tajik group led by Abdullah Abdullah.

How the government can function when vast area and key routes and chokepoints are controlled by a third governance in the taliban.

The other 2 parties will have no choice but to reconcile with the taliban to avoid full on conflict and disintegration
 
If the Taliban take charge in Afghanistan as seems to be the case it will be good for Pak and terrible for India. America leaving Afghanistan is terrible news for India, it could not be any worse for them. Indian channels are crying over India being forced out of Afghanistan where they have been doing terrorist operations for 21 years. Now it will be payback time when the Taliban after defeating the American's head towards IoK for revenge. Modi could have used the $3 billion he wasted in Afghanistan to alleviate the massive poverty and build toilets in India. It will now be a complete waste of such massive funds.
 
PakLFC said:
If the Taliban take charge in Afghanistan as seems to be the case it will be good for Pak and terrible for India. America leaving Afghanistan is terrible news for India, it could not be any worse for them. Indian channels are crying over India being forced out of Afghanistan where they have been doing terrorist operations for 21 years. Now it will be payback time when the Taliban after defeating the American's head towards IoK for revenge. Modi could have used the $3 billion he wasted in Afghanistan to alleviate the massive poverty and build toilets in India. It will now be a complete waste of such massive funds.
Click to expand...

Taliban will do what in J and K? Attack a nuclear armed nation in its own territory? Lol.
 
cricketjoshila said:
Taliban will do what in J and K? Attack a nuclear armed nation in its own territory? Lol.
Click to expand...

Beat up your soldiers for starters. I don't think even India is stupid enough to use nukes. When they just beat up a superpower India is nothing for them.
 
Last edited:
PakLFC said:
Beat up your soldiers for starters. I don't think even India is stupid enough to use nukes. When they just beat up a superpower India is nothing for them.
Click to expand...

It's hard to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan because they indulge in asymmetric warfare against foreign powers and the more militants you kill, the more they spring up and you can't simply go and attack areas held by them because they mix with the local population.

It's one thing to defend your territory against a foreign power though but it's totally a different matter to attack another country in its territory with a conventional military with much superior armaments to what you possess as a militia group.
 
street cricketer said:
It's hard to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan because they indulge in asymmetric warfare against foreign powers and the more militants you kill, the more they spring up and you can't simply go and attack areas held by them because they mix with the local population.

It's one thing to defend your territory against a foreign power though but it's totally a different matter to attack another country in its territory with a conventional military with much superior armaments to what you possess as a militia group.
Click to expand...

Its a relief that Taliban isnt going to USA. Or according to his logic, they wouod have captured USA.
 
street cricketer said:
It's hard to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan because they indulge in asymmetric warfare against foreign powers and the more militants you kill, the more they spring up and you can't simply go and attack areas held by them because they mix with the local population.

It's one thing to defend your territory against a foreign power though but it's totally a different matter to attack another country in its territory with a conventional military with much superior armaments to what you possess as a militia group.
Click to expand...

The Taliban are coming like it or not. Just ask your media who are panicking like you won't believe. Sure it will be difficult then defending their own territory yet IoK is not that far from Afghanistan. They will be backed by their obvious friends who you know all about!:shhh
 
PakLFC said:
Beat up your soldiers for starters. I don't think even India is stupid enough to use nukes. When they just beat up a superpower India is nothing for them.
Click to expand...

Taliban did not defeat USA. That is a stupid way of thinking. USA cannot stay in Afghanistan forever. It tried its best to bring the democracy. But if the people want anarchy and reject freedom and democracy, nobody can help them.
Taliban is only coming back after USA left. They were hiding in mountains like rats when USA had its troops on the ground.

Afghan people must reject their backward mindset and think about their future and the future of their children and accept modernity. No amount of force can change if they are not willing to change.
 
guna said:
Taliban did not defeat USA. That is a stupid way of thinking. USA cannot stay in Afghanistan forever. It tried its best to bring the democracy. But if the people want anarchy and reject freedom and democracy, nobody can help them.
Taliban is only coming back after USA left. They were hiding in mountains like rats when USA had its troops on the ground.

Afghan people must reject their backward mindset and think about their future and the future of their children and accept modernity. No amount of force can change if they are not willing to change.
Click to expand...

USA are leaving after 20 years with their war objective a failure, this means defeat. Only a fool would think running off at night, leaving Taliban stronger than ever, leaving their weapons behind for them to take is a victory for the Yanks.

Leave the Afghans alone for a few decades they will improve. Even still there are countless more backward people than them esp in places such as India.
 
https://www.samaa.tv/news/2021/07/video-shows-people-expressing-support-for-afghan-taliban-in-quetta/

People on motorcycles and cars in Quetta organised a rally in Quetta on Wednesday, expressing their support for the Afghan Taliban, according to a video made by a SAMAA TV reporter.

The people were carrying the white flags of the insurgent group and they raised pro-Afghan Taliban slogans. The rally roamed in various areas of the city and ended on Zarghun Road.

Liaquat Shahwani, the spokesperson for the Balochistan government, declined to comment on it when contacted by SAMAA TV. He added that he will respond to the queries after speaking with the Quetta deputy commissioner.

On July 11, the police had arrested two people for raising pro-Afghan Taliban slogans at a funeral in Peshawar. The action was taken after a video of some people chanting pro-Afghan Taliban slogans at a funeral went viral on social media.

Earlier on Wednesday, Afghan Taliban claimed they have captured the strategic border crossing of Spin Boldak on the frontier with Pakistan Wednesday, continuing sweeping gains made since foreign forces stepped up their withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Spin Boldak is the latest in a string of border crossings and dry ports seized by the Taliban in recent weeks, with the insurgents looking to choke off much-needed revenue from the government in Kabul while also filling their own coffers.
Click to expand...
 
guna said:
Taliban did not defeat USA. That is a stupid way of thinking. USA cannot stay in Afghanistan forever. It tried its best to bring the democracy. But if the people want anarchy and reject freedom and democracy, nobody can help them.
Taliban is only coming back after USA left. They were hiding in mountains like rats when USA had its troops on the ground.

Afghan people must reject their backward mindset and think about their future and the future of their children and accept modernity. No amount of force can change if they are not willing to change.
Click to expand...

By your definition, same happened with Viet Cong as well?

They never directly confronted the US military. End of the day US left Vietnam without meeting any of its objectives.

In the words of Billy Joel

We, held the day in the palm of our hands
They ruled the night
And the night seemed to last as long as 6 months on Parris Island....
 
PakLFC said:
The Taliban are coming like it or not. Just ask your media who are panicking like you won't believe. Sure it will be difficult then defending their own territory yet IoK is not that far from Afghanistan. They will be backed by their obvious friends who you know all about!:shhh
Click to expand...

Good luck I guess..
 
KingKhanWC said:
USA are leaving after 20 years with their war objective a failure, this means defeat. Only a fool would think running off at night, leaving Taliban stronger than ever, leaving their weapons behind for them to take is a victory for the Yanks.

Leave the Afghans alone for a few decades they will improve. Even still there are countless more backward people than them esp in places such as India.
Click to expand...

USA bombed the Taliban into oblivion. Its leaders were killed while scurrying like rats. Only an idiot will think that USA lost, because he probably believed victory meant making Afghanistan the next US state.

Its amusing when Pakistanis talk about India being backward.
 
cricketjoshila said:
USA bombed the Taliban into oblivion. Its leaders were killed while scurrying like rats. Only an idiot will think that USA lost, because he probably believed victory meant making Afghanistan the next US state.

Its amusing when Pakistanis talk about India being backward.
Click to expand...

lol. Not sure what the BJP news channel is showing but Taliban are stronger than ever before. Bombing doesnt mean victory. lol. Victory is removing the occupiers, which the Taliban have done inc the Indians who used their land to organise terrorist attacks in Pakistan.

I know many Indians are in tears about this, esp after spending billions in Afghanistan. But they should have known it wouldnt be too long before their left back to Bombay with their tails between their legs.

Stay in denial, India is a shuppapower etc :sachin. Its great comedy.
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">IEA announced the liberation of Kandahar’s Spin Boldak area and seized Pakistani currency from Afghan Intelligence officials. It was reportedly used for sponsorship of terrorism in Pakistan. <a href="https://t.co/PWfy7b9fbZ">pic.twitter.com/PWfy7b9fbZ</a></p>— Pakistan Defence (@Defence__Pk) <a href="https://twitter.com/Defence__Pk/status/1415274013773996034?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 14, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
cric_man said:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">IEA announced the liberation of Kandahar’s Spin Boldak area and seized Pakistani currency from Afghan Intelligence officials. It was reportedly used for sponsorship of terrorism in Pakistan. <a href="https://t.co/PWfy7b9fbZ">pic.twitter.com/PWfy7b9fbZ</a></p>— Pakistan Defence (@Defence__Pk) <a href="https://twitter.com/Defence__Pk/status/1415274013773996034?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 14, 2021</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Click to expand...

I hope Taliban execute all those who were/are involved in terrorist activities against Pakistani people.
 
WhenSultansBowled said:
I hope Taliban execute all those who were/are involved in terrorist activities against Pakistani people.
Click to expand...

They will no doubt or hand them over to Pak if Pak wants to interegate them.

Pakistan was crucial in helping them to send the Yanks packing. As part of the deal the Taliban will ensure all Indian terrorist camps are wiped out, all Indian backed terrorists are also wiped out. In a few months Afghanistan will be purified of Indians and their backed terrorists.
 
KingKhanWC said:
They will no doubt or hand them over to Pak if Pak wants to interegate them.

Pakistan was crucial in helping them to send the Yanks packing. As part of the deal the Taliban will ensure all Indian terrorist camps are wiped out, all Indian backed terrorists are also wiped out. In a few months Afghanistan will be purified of Indians and their backed terrorists.
Click to expand...

About time. These psychopath animals had immunity behind "Indian consulates".

It will be a through purification, InshaAllah.
 
cricketjoshila said:
More than Taliban, who will run back to torabora, their friends will need the luck.
Click to expand...

It'd be interesting to see how much leverage the ISI would continue to have over the Taliban after the exit of the Americans and if the Taliban rise to power in Afghanistan.
 
guna said:
Taliban did not defeat USA. That is a stupid way of thinking. USA cannot stay in Afghanistan forever. It tried its best to bring the democracy. But if the people want anarchy and reject freedom and democracy, nobody can help them.
Taliban is only coming back after USA left. They were hiding in mountains like rats when USA had its troops on the ground.

Afghan people must reject their backward mindset and think about their future and the future of their children and accept modernity. No amount of force can change if they are not willing to change.
Click to expand...

Of course they beat them up. America has failed to achieve it's goals in Afghanistan that was to remain there permanently to control the region particularly to keep an eye on China. Tired and frustrated the American soldiers don't know what they are fighting anymore and the group they came to oust will soon be back in charge too. You are no one to tell us what Afghan people want, Indian's do not understand Afghan culture and history like Pakistanis do, we have million's of Afghan's living in Pak and our Pathan belt is identical to them in culture.

So what if the Taliban were hiding wherever they were? They could not financially compete with the wealthiest country in the world or their weapons therefore used different tactics to get the job done. The Taliban don't worship money or care about the economy like your American's friends do. They made your American invaders waste trillions of dollars for no reason at all and as you admit are coming back.

Afghan people don't want your Bollywood type of western modernization. Unlike Indian people they have not sold there soul to the west in order to be more acceptable. They are an ancient people proud of their history and legacy and want to live on the terms they like. You are no one to tell them how to live or what culture to follow. Much against the propaganda you hear against them they are not against education or woman's rights at all just because they hate micro mini's and scantly dressed ladies ! Ask Yvonne Ridley the journalist of how well she was treated by them.
 
America got owned by Taliban...just like in Badar when 313 un armed beat the odds with نصر من اللہ۔۔ its a miracle to defeat an army with greater number and ammunition..America left Afghanistan disgraced..
 
It sounds very much like moral victory chants posters put up here after their team puts up a shoddy performance and still back their team for an individual performance lol

In what world did Taliban beat USA. They got pounded for years, and only reason USA is leaving is increasing budgets to keep troops on ground and also serving no purpose for now. People back home in USA just don't see any reason to stay in Afg and pressure is on government, whether Republicans or democrats.
All this victory and all is good for social media and online forums and keep parroting same without rhyme or reason, but ground reality is different.

Personal point of view, its a good thing that foreign forces are leaving. But it should be taken over by Afghan government who are more stable. If Taliban takes over possibly AlQueda, it's the worst possible scenario to unfold
 
globalcitizen said:
It sounds very much like moral victory chants posters put up here after their team puts up a shoddy performance and still back their team for an individual performance lol

In what world did Taliban beat USA. They got pounded for years, and only reason USA is leaving is increasing budgets to keep troops on ground and also serving no purpose for now. People back home in USA just don't see any reason to stay in Afg and pressure is on government, whether Republicans or democrats.
All this victory and all is good for social media and online forums and keep parroting same without rhyme or reason, but ground reality is different.

Personal point of view, its a good thing that foreign forces are leaving. But it should be taken over by Afghan government who are more stable. If Taliban takes over possibly AlQueda, it's the worst possible scenario to unfold
Click to expand...

In Planet Earth.

The ojbective by the invading armies was to wipe out the Taliban & install a puppet regime. After 20 years the resistance held firm , became stronger, killed thousands of troops. Just being able to survive against 40+ nations is a great victory but making them run while leaving their vehicles and weapons is one of the greatest victories in military history combat.

If you cant understand this, warfare & geo-politics isnt your thing.
 
The problem with the Afghan Taliban is that they want Shariah, but they don’t follow Shariah. In Islam, it’s forbidden to kill innocent civilians, to kill people of different religions, to kill those who have surrendered etc. The Afghan Taliban taking control of Afghanistan may be good for Pakistan, but it won’t be for the religious minorities in Afghanistan. No one deserves to be blown up for their religious beliefs.
 
Things will be worse, but that’s not to say the American occupation was doing anything positive for the Afghans. At the end of the day, they have to decide which direction their country wants to head in. They have been ravaged by the Soviets, the Americans and the radicals created by the Americans and the Pakistanis to fight the soviets. I feel bad for years of proxy wars and abuse they have suffered.
 
Prior to 9/11 the Taliban governing Afghanistan did not bother Pak at all. Indian's saying they want "a stable government in Afghanistan" means a pro-Indian government that lets them use Afghanistan to continue terrorism inside Pak. Most important thing to me is like before the Taliban do not allow terrorism inside Pak and we leave them alone as well. You can hear the Indian people screaming in frustration, anger and desperation all over their media and TV channels. No one is saying that the Taliban follows true Shariah just like any other Muslim majority country. So people have a problem with their ancient way of living and dress code, to bad. I dislike ladies dressed in sarees too.
 
Last edited:
KingKhanWC said:
In Planet Earth.

The ojbective by the invading armies was to wipe out the Taliban & install a puppet regime. After 20 years the resistance held firm , became stronger, killed thousands of troops. Just being able to survive against 40+ nations is a great victory but making them run while leaving their vehicles and weapons is one of the greatest victories in military history combat.

If you cant understand this, warfare & geo-politics isnt your thing.
Click to expand...

Taliban lost their leader who was shamelessly was hiding in a another country having escaped in a ladies clothes. This after leaving his comrades back in Afg to die. That lack of credibility is enough for world to proclaim what cowards they are.

The brave Afghan civilian population who have now taken up arms and are resisting the Taliban's are the brave souls. Now that's a story to remember and told for generations to come.
 
globalcitizen said:
Taliban lost their leader who was shamelessly was hiding in a another country having escaped in a ladies clothes. This after leaving his comrades back in Afg to die. That lack of credibility is enough for world to proclaim what cowards they are.

The brave Afghan civilian population who have now taken up arms and are resisting the Taliban's are the brave souls. Now that's a story to remember and told for generations to come.
Click to expand...

Not every Afghan loves the Taliban nonetheless they do have plenty of supporters much to your disappointment. Just coz many Afghans dislike the Taliban does not mean they want a pro Indian government either like you want. In war people die too including leaders from all political factions like in India even Pak there is a history of assassinations. You do remember how your Gandhi's were murdered before you mock the Taliban leader??

The Taliban have taken over an American gym without much resistance from anyone and are hoisting their flags in many parts of the country.

 
PakLFC said:
Not every Afghan loves the Taliban nonetheless they do have plenty of supporters much to your disappointment. Just coz many Afghans dislike the Taliban does not mean they want a pro Indian government either like you want. In war people die too including leaders from all political factions like in India even Pak there is a history of assassinations. You do remember how your Gandhi's were murdered before you mock the Taliban leader??

The Taliban have taken over an American gym without much resistance from anyone and are hoisting their flags in many parts of the country.

Click to expand...

why do you do gymnastics in Ur post lol. We are talking about usa and it's success or failure in Afghanistan and suddenly you refer to pro Indian government. And then you talk about Gandhi assassination comparing to Osama. Maintain some sanity in your posts

Also Why would someone resist if Taliban takes over a american gym ? And what sort of achievement is that .. and what is the basis of mentioning this to our argument. LoL
 
Some people in this thread have parallel reality made up entirely in their delusional minds.

Anyways, expect upcoming Netflix / Amazon documentaries so these people can make up their minds :yk

This is a tremendous VICTORY for Taliban. Just because y'all like or dislike Taliban, reality won't change because of it.


Opinion: The Taliban defeated America. Let the blame game begin

After the fall of South Vietnam in 1975, there was an acrimonious debate over who lost the Vietnam War. Many in the military and the Republican Party subscribed to a “stabbed in the back” myth, blaming politicians and the media for supposedly preventing the armed forces from defeating North Vietnam. Many liberals, on the other hand, argued that it was a war the United States should not have fought and could not have won.

Afghanistan isn’t lost — yet — but with the Taliban advancing rapidly, the debate over “who lost Afghanistan?” has already begun. Republicans, ignoring that it was President Donald Trump who began the withdrawal, are blaming President Biden for “a disaster in the making.” Biden defended himself last week by claiming that we had achieved our “objectives” — “to get the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 and to deliver justice to Osama Bin Laden” — and, beyond that, “it’s up to the people of Afghanistan to decide on what government they want.” Retired Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, Trump’s national security adviser, jumped in to blame media “disinterest and defeatism” for creating the “conditions for capitulation,” while progressive MSNBC host Mehdi Hasan argued “the original invasion itself was an outrage, given there were no Afghans aboard any of the 4 planes” on Sept. 11, 2001. Suffice it to say there is plenty of blame to go around for what is likely to be remembered as the second major war — after Vietnam — that the United States has lost. But it shouldn’t fall on the media. McMaster himself once wrote that the “war in Vietnam” was not “lost on the front pages of the New York Times,” and the same is true in Afghanistan. Negative news articles reflect reality — they don’t create it.

The real blame falls squarely on politicians and generals — both American and Afghan. A succession of U.S. presidents made one mistake after another. While George W. Bush was right to go into Afghanistan (which is where the attack originated, even if there were no Afghans on the 9/11 planes), he was wrong to pivot to a war of choice in Iraq. Barack Obama implemented a halfhearted, time-limited troop surge that encouraged the Taliban to wait it out. Trump negotiated an agreement that demanded next to nothing of the Taliban in return for a U.S. pullout. Biden, instead of pointing out that the Taliban had failed to break ties with al-Qaeda, moved ahead with the withdrawal anyway despite the likelihood that Afghanistan will once again become a terrorist haven. The U.S. military cannot escape blame for this fiasco. As The Post’s Afghanistan Papers series pointed out, U.S. forces failed to “build a competent Afghan army and police force” or to tell the truth about how badly the war was going. This was more a matter of self-deception than of conscious lying. With its gung-ho, can-do ethos, the U.S. military is inherently inclined to highlight evidence of “progress,” however chimerical, instead of focusing on far more pervasive problems.

As poorly as U.S. politicians and military leaders performed, their Afghan counterparts have been far worse. The reasons that so much of the Afghan army appears to be crumbling in the face of the enemy — just as the Iraqi army did in 2014 — are poor leadership and pervasive corruption. As a former Afghan finance minister told the New York Times: “The mismanagement has led us to where we are today.” Even now, with the enemy practically at the gates, the Afghan elite continue to squabble among themselves rather than unite to save the nation.

Given the dysfunction and corruption of the Afghan political class, it is tempting to simply wash our hands of the country, as Biden is now doing, by suggesting that we’ve done enough and now it’s up to them. There is a logic to this argument, but in Afghanistan, the United States is itself complicit in misgovernance — just as we were in South Vietnam. For 20 years, we pumped untold billions into Afghanistan and cut unsavory deals with corrupt warlords. In the process, we empowered abusive crooks while making the Afghan military reliant on our support. The sudden withdrawal of U.S. air power has been a crippling blow, not only militarily but also psychologically, because we are also withdrawing the contractors who keep Afghan aircraft flying. By leaving, we’re not giving the people of Afghanistan the opportunity to decide how they want to be governed, as Biden said. We’re giving a barbaric insurgency the opportunity to oppress them. After having invested so much for so long in Afghanistan, we cannot now escape responsibility for its fate. In 1975, a U.S. Army colonel famously told a North Vietnamese colonel, “You know, you never beat us on the battlefield.” His counterpart responded, “That may be so, but it is also irrelevant.” Indeed. Guerrillas prevail not by outfighting but by outlasting a more powerful foe. The Taliban has done just that. It has not yet defeated the government in Kabul, but it has already defeated the one in Washington. Let the recriminations and finger-pointing begin. If Vietnam is any indication, the Afghanistan “blame game” could roil U.S. politics for decades to come.
Click to expand...

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr...nions/2021/07/12/who-lost-afghanistan-debate/
 
Last edited:
WhenSultansBowled said:
Some people in this thread have parallel reality made up entirely in their delusional minds.

Anyways, expect upcoming Netflix / Amazon documentaries so these people can make up their minds :yk

This is a tremendous VICTORY for Taliban. Just because y'all like or dislike Taliban, reality won't change because of it.




Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr...nions/2021/07/12/who-lost-afghanistan-debate/
Click to expand...

They absolutely did. No two ways about it. America has a habit of losing such wars. Didn’t achieve much in Koreas, technically they are still at war.
Didn’t get a result they wanted in Vietnam. The Cuban bay of pigs invasion also failed. Didn’t get what they wanted in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Makes you wonder, how thick headed is their top brass to not learn any lessons from them all.. unless of course their main goal is to keep feeding the pockets of the military industrial complex through the hard earned tax dollars money of the average American citizens (which I suspect is the real reason quite honestly).. nothing ideological, manifest destiny or fight for freedom about it at all!
 
street cricketer said:
It'd be interesting to see how much leverage the ISI would continue to have over the Taliban after the exit of the Americans and if the Taliban rise to power in Afghanistan.
Click to expand...

This is a good point, the truth is Afghanistan is poor, they will likely be without any sufficient aid or any monetary help. Their only consistent source of trade and income is us.

Saying that your point is valid as China and Russia will look to exploit the gap and make sure Taliban are propped up by some means lest another American backed regime comes along.

I still think we will have some measure of leverage over them, maybe not as much as before but enough to make sure our Western border stays calm.
 
PakLFC said:
Of course they beat them up. America has failed to achieve it's goals in Afghanistan that was to remain there permanently to control the region particularly to keep an eye on China. Tired and frustrated the American soldiers don't know what they are fighting anymore and the group they came to oust will soon be back in charge too. You are no one to tell us what Afghan people want, Indian's do not understand Afghan culture and history like Pakistanis do, we have million's of Afghan's living in Pak and our Pathan belt is identical to them in culture.

So what if the Taliban were hiding wherever they were? They could not financially compete with the wealthiest country in the world or their weapons therefore used different tactics to get the job done. The Taliban don't worship money or care about the economy like your American's friends do. They made your American invaders waste trillions of dollars for no reason at all and as you admit are coming back.

Afghan people don't want your Bollywood type of western modernization. Unlike Indian people they have not sold there soul to the west in order to be more acceptable. They are an ancient people proud of their history and legacy and want to live on the terms they like. You are no one to tell them how to live or what culture to follow. Much against the propaganda you hear against them they are not against education or woman's rights at all just because they hate micro mini's and scantly dressed ladies ! Ask Yvonne Ridley the journalist of how well she was treated by them.
Click to expand...

America did put in a democratic government and it succeeded in driving the vermin Taliban to caves where they rightfully belong.

USA did whatever they could for 2 decades. They cannot be in Afghanistan forever. That country is hell bent on implementing sharia and if that is people’s wish, then so be it. You can only take the horse to the water. You cannot make it drink.

When USA brought democracy to Korea, South Korea was a nothing country. Look at them now. Their success was due to embracing modernity and rejecting a failed ideology in Communism. Their people had the will to develop and work for their future generations. The same cannot be said about Afghans.
 
guna said:
America did put in a democratic government and it succeeded in driving the vermin Taliban to caves where they rightfully belong.

USA did whatever they could for 2 decades. They cannot be in Afghanistan forever. That country is hell bent on implementing sharia and if that is people’s wish, then so be it. You can only take the horse to the water. You cannot make it drink.

When USA brought democracy to Korea, South Korea was a nothing country. Look at them now. Their success was due to embracing modernity and rejecting a failed ideology in Communism. Their people had the will to develop and work for their future generations. The same cannot be said about Afghans.
Click to expand...

LoL. That government was not democratic. Just think, if it were truly a democratic government then people would stand behind it. It was a bunch of pedophile chiefs exporting drugs and backing terrorists inside Pakistan.

The actual people of Afghanistan know that and their actions justify it.

Even the rednecks living in deep Louisiana would laugh at your delusion about America 'bringing' democracy.

:yk
 
guna said:
America did put in a democratic government and it succeeded in driving the vermin Taliban to caves where they rightfully belong.

USA did whatever they could for 2 decades. They cannot be in Afghanistan forever. That country is hell bent on implementing sharia and if that is people’s wish, then so be it. You can only take the horse to the water. You cannot make it drink.

When USA brought democracy to Korea, South Korea was a nothing country. Look at them now. Their success was due to embracing modernity and rejecting a failed ideology in Communism. Their people had the will to develop and work for their future generations. The same cannot be said about Afghans.
Click to expand...

US did not bring democracy to Korea. They just made sure a balance is maintained by backing South Korea in the region against a communist backed NK. Technically the koreas are still at war. I would consider it an accomplishment had they kept the country United with democracy in place.

If you take to any South Korean you would get the gist. They don’t have any love for the Americans there. Watch a few South Koreans films and shows and you will get the point.
 
Stewie said:
They absolutely did. No two ways about it. America has a habit of losing such wars. Didn’t achieve much in Koreas, technically they are still at war.
Didn’t get a result they wanted in Vietnam. The Cuban bay of pigs invasion also failed. Didn’t get what they wanted in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Makes you wonder, how thick headed is their top brass to not learn any lessons from them all.. unless of course their main goal is to keep feeding the pockets of the military industrial complex through the hard earned tax dollars money of the average American citizens (which I suspect is the real reason quite honestly).. nothing ideological, manifest destiny or fight for freedom about it at all!
Click to expand...

Without American intervention in the Korean war, South Korea would've been run over by the communists of North Korea and it is likely that they would be no different from the north today. It is fair to say that Seoul is doing slightly better than Pyongyang now. So America entering that war was definitely beneficial for both the Koreans and the Americans. It's important to remember that the Americans entered the war only to have a counterweight to the Soviet union, China and north Korea in the far east and they had only influence in Japan and needed another state to act as a counterweight against the communists.

As for Afghanistan, their main objective was to not let the communists take over Afghanistan in the 1980s and they achieved that objective with the help of the Mujahideens. They re entered the Afghanistan theatre only after the WTC attacks to fight against the Al Qaeda and they invaded Taliban controlled Afghanistan and swiftly took over, clearing the Al Qaeda militia from their bases. It is easy to defeat Taliban in the short team using military might, but it's very difficult to do that in the long term as they would continue to persist in the background and slowly rebuild again after every defeat. Although they succeeded in defeating the Al Qaeda, the Taliban finally wore the American troops down in a long protracted war than a short term battle. However in my opinion, one of the main reasons why America stayed in Afghanistan for so long is because of their military industrial complex, which benefits from war happening and not stopping, irrespective of the objectives.
 
Pakpak said:
This is a good point, the truth is Afghanistan is poor, they will likely be without any sufficient aid or any monetary help. Their only consistent source of trade and income is us.

Saying that your point is valid as China and Russia will look to exploit the gap and make sure Taliban are propped up by some means lest another American backed regime comes along.

I still think we will have some measure of leverage over them, maybe not as much as before but enough to make sure our Western border stays calm.
Click to expand...

Pakistan and the Taliban stayed in a symbiotic relationship all these years, the Taliban ensured a friendly government for Pakistan in the western border while Pakistan brought in the funding and arms for the Taliban to stay in power and fight the Afghan military and Americans in return.

With Americans exiting Afghanistan, it is likely that the Afghan government might fall to the Taliban. So it does reduce Pakistan's leverage over the Taliban somewhat. Although I do think the Taliban will continue to stay friendly with the Pakistani state as they wouldn't want to have a hostile nation on their eastern border while at the same fighting an internal battle within. I'm not sure what kind of relationship the Taliban share with the Iranians, but I think it would be a bit complicated given Iran are a shia majority country and the Taliban are known to have persecuted the shias in Afghanistan.
 
street cricketer said:
To finally answer the topic of the thread, Pakistan's geostrategic needs have changed. The Americans have started leaving and the Americans are not their main partners anymore in terms of arms trade - China has assumed that position now. The Taliban are increasingly growing in power in Afghanistan and how long the Afghan government stands after the departure of the US is anyone's guess. So technically, Pakistan can support the Afghan Taliban with full freedom and the ensure a 'friendly' government in Afghanistan. They also have flushed out most of the foreign and native TTP fighters through Zarb-e-Azb operations in 2014. But the question remains what happens when the Afghan Taliban run amok in Afghanistan and start controlling the entire country. Would Taliban sentiments and ambitions rise again in the erstwhile FATA regions or seep through the Af-Pak border as Afghan refugees inevitably flood into the country as Taliban takes over?

My personal opinion is that Pakistan were probably left without an alternative to enter the Soviet Afghan war after the Red army invaded Afghanistan. But I also think while Pakistan, by supporting an islamist movement in Afghanistan over the years, has managed to quell the territorial threats of a "ethno-nationalist" Afghan government, it has also caused innumerable loss of lives, money and reputation through terrorism caused in their own territory as a result of the policies followed by their military establishment. Afghanistan are the poorest economy out of all countries in south asia and their biggest exports are probably apples and dry fruits. The Afghan military isn't even strong enough to defend their own territories from the rag tag militia of the Taliban and operate outdated weapons. So while Pakistan were probably forced to support the Mujahideens, they could have done without supporting the Taliban as doing so has caused more harm for themselves in their territory, than it would have if they had not done so. When they can defend their eastern border against a much bigger economy and military, I don't see why they couldn't have done so in their western border too against even a 'nationalist' Afghan government with rudimentary military and an inferior economy to themselves.
Click to expand...

At the time they did not realize that 9/11 would happen, and they would have to choose a side. Before that their was no real blowback in Pakistan. If they had to do it over i dont think they would support the Taliban, but its too late now. Unfortunately for Afghanistan they will have to deal with them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Iran's border security forces allegedly massacre 'dozens' of Afghan migrants
Replies
21
Views
843
Local.Dada
L
FearlessRoar
[VIDEOS] Rebels seize Syria as Bashar al-Assad leaves the country [Post Updated #49]
2 3
Replies
199
Views
6K
Cricket Warrior
Cricket Warrior
ethan hunt
Pakistan spies spilling out from the woodwork in India after the Pahalgam crisis
2
Replies
119
Views
5K
BouncerGuy
BouncerGuy
FearlessRoar
  • Poll Poll
What shifts might we anticipate in US-Pakistan relations under a second term of Donald Trump’s presidency?
Replies
67
Views
5K
The Bald Eagle
The Bald Eagle
The Bald Eagle
[VIDEO/PICTURES] "Hot sindoor runs in my veins": Indian PM Narendra Modi
Replies
37
Views
2K
MP2011
M
Back
Top