Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mullah Omar is in Pakistan: France

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mullah Omar is in Pakistan: France

    Mullah Omar is in Pakistan: France
    September 15, 2010 - 4:04AM

    AFP

    Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Omar is based in Pakistan and everyone knows it, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner says, calling on Islamabad to do more to help end the conflict.

    "It's not a secret for anyone, everyone knows that Mullah Omar is in Quetta, if he's not now in Karachi," Kouchner told French MPs on Tuesday, referring to two major Pakistani cities known to harbour Islamist militant cells.

    Mullah Omar was the leader of the Taliban Islamic regime that was overthrown in Afghanistan by US-led forces in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks and is now thought to be based in Quetta.
    Advertisement: Story continues below

    "Taliban leaders have been given shelter in Pakistan. I'm not revealing anything," Kouchner said, telling parliament's foreign relations committee why Afghanistan has called on Pakistan to help negotiate a peace deal.

    © 2010 AFP
    To sit down with these men and deal with them as the representatives of an enlightened and civilized people is to deride ones own dignity and to invite the disaster of their treachery - General Matthew Ridgway

  • #2
    Well i mean Indians told everyone the same, about 9 years ago. This would have been hilarious if it wasnt for innocent people dying everyday, and all because the worlds most powerful nation just does not have the balls to do what it promised its citizens.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by cirrrocco View Post
      Well i mean Indians told everyone the same, about 9 years ago.
      The world hasn't and will not turn benevolent suddenly. The world did not fear the islamist nutjobs up until 9/11. Pakistan used to be india's problem. It didn't affect the world so nobody interfered. But now since the freedom fighters of pakistan have gone global, the world suddenly begins to care and appears to have become "benevolent" for the region.

      The pakistani's claim to be descendent's of arabs or whatever. But india considers the pakistanis to be of the same race as indians. God forbid, if india is forced to drop nukes on it's own race.

      What is india-pakistans problem?
      The muslim invaders came. They persecuted india for decades and killed millions BUT it still remained *pre-dominantly hindu* - that is india's pride. The invaders left but the small percentage of indians(from india-pak-BD) who had got broken by the islamic invaders have taken on the invaders legacy.

      India will not kill pakistan but it will not accept pakistan either.
      Last edited by nvishal; 15 Sep 10,, 10:12.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by nvishal View Post
        The world hasn't and will not turn benevolent suddenly. The world did not fear the islamist nutjobs up until 9/11. Pakistan used to be india's problem. It didn't affect the world so nobody interfered. But now since the freedom fighters of pakistan have gone global, the world suddenly begins to care and appears to have become "benevolent" for the region.

        The pakistani's claim to be descendent's of arabs or whatever. But india considers the pakistanis to be of the same race as indians. God forbid, if india is forced to drop nukes on it's own race.
        By freedom fighters you mean the mujahideen that fought against the Soviets?
        Or are you calling Al Qaida and Taliban Pakistan created freedom fighting organisation?

        I dont think race is an issue in a place like India sure as hell did less than US intervention in 71 to stop India from continuing to advance into western Pakistan, or even in dropping nuclear weapons, especially the nuclear part, i think the massive loss of life is the issue.
        Originally posted by nvishal View Post
        What is india-pakistans problem?
        The muslim invaders came. They persecuted india for decades and killed millions BUT it still remained *pre-dominantly hindu* - that is india's pride. The invaders left but the small percentage of indians(from india-pak-BD) who had got broken by the islamic invaders have taken on the invaders legacy.

        India will not kill pakistan but it will not accept pakistan either.
        I assume by muslim invaders which persecuted and killed millions you mean the mugal empire (i think they were here for more than a few decades).

        I doubt Pakistan is a single entity which could be as you put, killed by India, and their embassy ensures that we recognise them as a nation, in fact that could have been one of the first acts of a Independent India.
        Last edited by kuku; 15 Sep 10,, 15:44.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Cactus
          Fine, "India" told it so 9 years back, or 90 years back, or 900 years back - so friggin' what?
          You kill it. We ain't doing it.

          Originally posted by Cactus
          Is India willing and able to take action based on its knowledge? Events so far have said, no.
          We lived with them since it's creation and we can surely do so in the future. But when our problem arrives in the US with a war head in it's backpack then that's not our f$%king problem just as the india-pakistan issue is not the west's problem.

          Originally posted by Cactus
          BTW: YOU may continue to consider Pakistanis of your "race" ... that is your privilege.
          The ruling pakistani's are racially similar to a sub-group of north-indians. India has many ethnicities and races inside it. Regardless of a few squabbles, it is still holding and growing strong. Greater india in the old days worked regardless of race or skin colour. We cannot undo what the invaders did. The people are free to act as per their will.

          Originally posted by Cactus
          But don't say "India" does.
          Like i said, we can live with it. For all the things that we go through, it would have been far better to end it. But we didn't.

          Originally posted by Cactus
          And India has recognized Pakistan from day one, as it has diplomatic relations with the said country all these years.
          You do not understand. India did what was required. Lets say tomorrow the entire population of canada turned in taoists and claimed to be descendent's of asians and threatened america to turn into taoists with them. Americans think the canadians have lost their marbles and try to play it down as ignore them as much as possible. In the next following decades, canada acquires some nukes from china and ups the ante on america. Now tell me, what the hell is america supposed to do? Nuke canada, it's own race just because canada is suffering from a severe case of identity crisis? How silly is that? That my friend is the exact predicament which india is in.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by nvishal View Post
            Greater india in the old days worked regardless of race or skin colour. We cannot undo what the invaders did. The people are free to act as per their will.
            There was also never such a thing as a "greater India", it is just a myth. There were only 3 times in known history where India came closest to the shape it is today, and that is either under the Mauryans, than under the Mughals, and finally due to the British. The other 2 didn't last very long; Mauryans fell apart into various seperate warring kingdoms, Mughals faced constant civil war, Marathas were hated by most North Indians, who eventually waged war against them, and the fight against the British rule is the only thing which united all the ethnic groups for once, and which still only continues to unite India today, it is not the idea of some "greater India".
            Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
            -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

            Comment


            • #7
              Anyway, Mullah Omar is in Pakistan. Nice to see France pile on with this rather obvious news. The news itself is unimportant. That the French are readily prepared to state this reality to their parliament holds some value. Marginal, but value nonetheless.
              "This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski
              "The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Cactus
                The US did fight a massive civil war to preserve its unity.
                Do not compare the two. They didn't have nukes back then. Any existential threat will be met with MAD. And with ICBM's becoming a regular thing, the possibilities of a nuke war are almost zero unless it is a case of a dirty bomb.

                @tronic
                There was never a nation called bharat like the nations of today. This is not a revelation. The region was made up of several princely states. The regions under the influence of indic culture is called akhand bharat. It stretches from afghanistan to burma.

                Originally posted by Cactus
                Conceptually it has been there longer than most concepts of nationhood
                True. People do not understand that there was no such concept as a "country" or a "nation" in medieval india.
                Last edited by nvishal; 16 Sep 10,, 17:01.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Cactus
                  Conceptually it has been there longer than most concepts of nationhood, dating at least back to 5th Century BC when "Bharat" (India) is being defined territorially and by population. IIRC, surviving records from that time begin to start referring to the country as the land defined by the Himalayas to the North and the Indian Ocean to the South; and the people as descendants and subjects of a legendary king named Bharata. Of course, the loose confederation of principalities and republics is very different from our modern ideas of what constitutes nationhood - but it would be historically incorrect to say it did not exist.
                  The implied statement by nvishal was that multi-ethnic "greater India" worked "together". Where ethnically, 5th century BC "Bharat" is vastly different than today's Bharat. Culturally, it may follow indic culture, but ethnically, it is not the same; mass migrations, be them of Sakas in the North or arab traders and Jewish communities in the South, have ethnically changed the area much.

                  And to say that Marathas were "hated" by most of North Indians is just plain wrong. They had their share of differences with many of their NI allies, especially with regards to policy towards the rump Mughal court. But that is to be expected for any emerging power. In fact Shivaji's own father had considered him a rebel and outlaw for challenging the Deccani Sultans (under whom the father served); so did many prominent Maratha families initially. But eventually they all came around. It is therefore not unreasonable to expect that the recalcitrant North Indian allies would have also joined up if the Confederacy had stayed on. If they were so hated as you say, after their defeat at Panipat they would have been picked apart and slaughtered by the NI people as they retreated in disarray. Instead they were sheltered and protected by the Jats while they regrouped; in fact in the trans-Sutlej tracts the Sikhs actually helped free many of the captives being taken back to Afghanistan; and within a few years Scindia's army was back in the Punjab to perform kar-sewa (voluntary service) and help clean up and rebuild Harmandir Sahib (Golden Temple) from Abdali's destruction and sullying.
                  And yet, I have to step into one of the Patiala forts mere 30 mins drive from my farmhouse to read its history. Sikh kingdom of Patiala helped the Afghans and waged war against the Marathas. So did many other kingdoms, such as Nabha. Fact is, they saw the Marathas as foriegn invaders, no different as they saw the Afghans. And I would actually say, they played the Afghans and the Marathas into waging war against each other (notice how the Sikh armies sat out of the Battle of Panipat), and when the Marathas were defeated and Afghans were themselves exhausted, used the opportunity to drive the Afghans out.
                  Last edited by Tronic; 16 Sep 10,, 17:30.
                  Cow is the only animal that not only inhales oxygen, but also exhales it.
                  -Rekha Arya, Former Minister of Animal Husbandry

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Cactus
                    You originally asked whether the US would go to a massive and bloody war against people of its own "race"
                    No. I was very explicit. I asked whether *US would nuke canada* and i even presented a "hypothetic" scenario along with it.

                    Originally posted by Cactus
                    I have shown you it has indeed done so to preserve its unity
                    Cactusji, what a brilliant argument. Two blood thirsty nations who would ensure that none of them would survive in event of an eventuality and you go and compare these two parties with the one's from the american civil war? Wow. No comment and no debate either.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      S-2 reply
                      Sir,the public recognition may be the first step in a change of policy wrt Pak. Too late to save the war effort in A-stan,but not too late for the civil wars that will come in A-stan in Pakistan.
                      The problem with that policy may be that it will treat Pakistani elites as the foe,when in fact they're willy-nilly the least worst.The greatest fault of Western policy vis-a-vis Pakistan is that nothing was told as it is.Everyone with a half brain and interest in the area knew from 2001(or at the very least since 2003-4) that the Pakistani population is anti-western almost by default,while the elite depends on the rest of the world.There may be exceptions,but we're talking of a few in a nation of 170 millions.AFAIK,NATO countries still have some sort of Intel. Services,in case some don't read newspapers.
                      The new approach may lead to the other extreme.''We'' may pressure the Pakistani elites to take steps that can destroy the fragile balance of power in the country.
                      It was so much easier to tip the balance in the West's favor a few years ago.A missed chance,like so many others.Good men died in vain for that failure.The servitude and grandeur of soldiering.
                      Those who know don't speak
                      He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by S-2 View Post
                        That the French are readily prepared to state this reality to their parliament holds some value. Marginal, but value nonetheless.
                        The question in my mind is why now ?

                        Originally posted by Mihais View Post
                        Sir,the public recognition may be the first step in a change of policy wrt Pak. Too late to save the war effort in A-stan,but not too late for the civil wars that will come in A-stan in Pakistan.
                        ok

                        Originally posted by Mihais View Post
                        The new approach may lead to the other extreme.''We'' may pressure the Pakistani elites to take steps that can destroy the fragile balance of power in the country.
                        You can try but i'm sceptical it will yield anything more than in the past. Meaning what tangible results has that "pressure" achieved so far. And what more pressure can be applied when its clear you will eventually be leaving anyway.

                        I feel the Pakistani military has a strong enough grip over their own country anyway.

                        The only saving grace for the Afghans is that the Pakistani's will be up against the whole world in trying to implement their designs in Afghanistan. We will all be paying the enemies of the Taliban to keep them out of power.
                        Last edited by Double Edge; 18 Sep 10,, 08:38.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          OK, now that thread seems to be getting back on track - time to remove the OT posts...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                            The question in my mind is why now ?


                            ok


                            You can try but i'm sceptical it will yield anything more than in the past. Meaning what tangible results has that "pressure" achieved so far. And what more pressure can be applied when its clear you will eventually be leaving anyway.

                            I feel the Pak military has a strong enough grip over their own country anyway.

                            The only saving grace for the Afghans is that the Paks will be up against the whole world in trying to implement their designs in Afghanistan. We will all be paying the enemies of the Taliban to keep them out of power.

                            Pakistani, if you please. Thank you.
                            "They want to test our feelings.They want to know whether Muslims are extremists or not. Death to them and their newspapers."

                            Protester

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Appreceiate what you're saying but there is no derogatory intent here, that was not a typo.

                              You might have heard of the following terms: Indo-Pak talks, Indo-Pak express and Af-Pak. Now, grammatically speaking those three terms refer to the country of Pakistan, is it wrong to also use it to refer to her people ?
                              Last edited by Double Edge; 17 Sep 10,, 10:10.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X