Afghanistan - What is the objective?

"Feuding seems to be a Islamic sport supreme"

Right, that never happened/happens in "Christendom"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is that all the better you can do?

And exactly when was the last suicide bombing committed by the KKK against
a American Target?

And what happened to the Last Extremeist Bomber in America?

Now just how many wars are taking place between the sects of the Christian Religions?

How many have died due to Sunni on Shia violence in the last 10 years?

Let me give you a clue, you don't have enough finger and toes to make the count.

Muslims, Honor Killings, Blood Feuds, and who is the rightful successor to the Power of Mohammed, yes the Great High Theological Sport of Islam.

All can be confermed by just the simple act of reading the News.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Having considered all your questions, I see you're more than a little sideways, historically and rhetorically. You think White Empire isn't part of our difficulty in Afghanistan? We could go back farther, but I'll be brief, so you're not entirely lost from your identity.

What war took the most USAmerican lives (so far, and more than the rest combined)? Who's got the most WMDs (and has most unleashed them)? Who's got "God" (and more obscure mystical symbology) most prominently on our money? Who's your daddy? The answers can be confirmed with a good long look in the god damned mirror.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And what does any of that have to do with Muslims as terrorist, murdering their own in far greater numbers than we managed to do in the Civil War?

And who are the Muslims freeing, in their war against the rest of the Religions of the World, remember they are still have a the nasty habit of taking and keeping slaves.

As to our Money? so what? and again what does that have to do with the mass murder committed by Muslims against Muslims, or their murder of anyone that disagrees with them, or questions their religion?

How about the obscure mystical symbology of Islam? care to discuss that?

Yes, hype what does any of what you posted have to do with Muslim actions or the tenets of Islam as written in the Quran and Hadiths, and the complete white washing of the Actions done in Allah's and Mohammed's name, in the Murder of Millions in the name of Peace.

 

And your empire, who was that? Historically?

You need to look to your own historical knowledge.

 

http://www.rense.com/general29/bushsayssaddamtried.htm

:shrug:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

:scratchin:

 

And what do you think you have proven?:shrug::scratchin:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Just read the news, Muslims every day in their personnel and religious lives live the Feud, the Blood Law, Honor Killing, Eye for Eye, Tooth for Tooth, Insult for Insult.

We didn't go to war because Saddam tried to assassinate Bush 41, we went to war because Saddam hadn't complied fully and completely with the UNSCR 681, and subsequent resolutions.

Full compliance was required by the U.N. Resolutions, disarmament under U.N. supervision, with documentation, and that Saddam and Iraq didn't do.


History of Iraqi non-compliance:

 

*cough* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christian_terrorism&diff=249653580&oldid=249653342 *cough*

 

Bush' feud with Saddam has cost the lives of over a million people with a lot more displaced. Oh ya, Muslims are the only ones who fight or kill. Keep telling yourself that.

Im watching TV right now, I dont see anything about a Muslim feud.

Turns out, he didnt have WMDs.

 

Complete nonsense. Both Pakistan and Afghanistan have long since accepted it as the border between the two nations. The only one who is opposed to it is the US puppet Karzai who wishes to include the Pukhtoon areas in Pakistan (ironically while he has no control over his own Pukhtoon areas). He is nothing but a hate-mongerer, a racist against Pukhtoons and Pakistanis, and the worst war criminal in Afghani history. Furthermore, 2/3 of the world's Pukhtoon population reside in Pakistan, and they are deeply ingrained in its military structure. The Pukhtoon province of Pakistan, alone, is double the population of Afghanistan. Naturally the Pukhtoons want a merger with their cousins in Afghanistan to create another Pukhtoon state within the Pakistan federation. However, this is entirely dependent on the wills and wishes of the Pukhtoon people. No one else has the right to decide this but the Pukhtoons. In passing it is important to note that almost all of the Pro-Pakistan sentiment in Afghanistan is within the majority Pukhtoon population. 1/3 of all Pukhtoons of Afghanistan have lived in Pakistan to escape the constant turmoil of the country. The US oppression and constant bombing is pushing Pakistan and Afghanistan together more than anything the people of the region can do.

According to the plan for the original partition of India into Muslim-majority Pakistan and Hindu-majority Hindustan (bharat, etc.), Muslim majority areas were to be joined with Pakistan, Hindu majority areas with India. India invaded Kashmir, knowing full well that if they did not, the people of Kashmir (being vastly majority Muslim, 95% in the valley) would inevitably join Pakistan. India's invasion of Kashmir, and the subsequent British support for this invasion was tacit approval the oppression of the Muslims and to hold them back from their goal of complete freedom from foreign dominance or the dominance of their neighbors. Kashmir is the 'jugular vein' of Pakistan, as Quaid e Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, founder of Pakistan, declared quiet clearly. Furthermore, the Muslim majority regions of Firozpur with its military garrison was given to India in complete violation of the treaty. Hyderabad, and Junagadh, in the Deccan were also forcibly seized by India.

The truth is that Pakistan recognizes partition and demands UN plebiscite in Kashmir, but India will never agree to it because Nehru, the first PM of India, stated 'any Indian ruler responsible for agreeing to plebiscite would act in the opposition of the Indian interest, as the population would surely vote to merge with Pakistan. India, also, does not recognize partition, and considers Pakistan its territory, Indian schoolbooks constantly portray this. Not to mention that India's anthem, includes the major part of Punjab and the Sindh province as part of India, although they are in Pakistan. So who is expansionist, it should be quiet clear.

Any nation violating the territorial integrity of another nation should be chastised for such an action, particularly of an ally. We all know US sees its allies, not as equals, but as slaves. That is the whole problem. The life of one child in Pakistan is precious, now what of the hundreds killed by these attacks? The government is required, by its sworn oath to its people, to guarantee their security. A government which does not guarantee protection to its people and sells them to foreign powers has no right to exist. The Zardari government will fall soon enough, but the fault lies completely with the US. Just as they forced Musharraf to support their war in Afghanistan, and now force Zardari to allow them to kill Pakistani civilians with impunity. The question arises, how can a new government remain pro-US in an era when the US has no respect for its territorial integrity and conspires with its enemies against it? The new Pakistan government will be far from pro-American, and the US has no one to blame but themselves.

You would know this because you have been to Pakistan? I have a guess so please answer this, you are Indian aren't you?

Any nation would. Even Karzai (America's puppet) has begun to voice criticism, and now they are planning to remove him. Good riddance. No government in Afghanistan or Pakistan which supports drone strikes will survive for long, I guarantee this.

The Pakistani government recently crushed an insurgency from Afghani refugees in Swat under a pseudo-Taliban movement (TTP), which was indiscriminately targeting civilians and blowing up schools. Frankly, this is the first major good thing that Pakistan has done in the region since the 2001 war, but it is a start. Instead of punishing the people, as the US wanted, Pakistani military established itself as a security force and gained the support and peace of its people.

It is interesting to note that this movement TTP, also preached war against Kashmiri mujahideen groups and Pukhtoon rebels in Afghanistan opposing the US. Why would a Islamic and Pukhtoon group target people who wish to dislodge the US from Afghanistan and the Indians form Kashmir?

Right, and you would know this because you are Pukhtoon. I have many Pukhtoon relatives, and I can tell you that Pukhtoons are an integral pat of Pakistan. Don't you know Imran Khan, who is Pukhtoon, is one of the most rising Pakistani politicians in the nation, he is also an ex-cricket star. Qazi Hussein Ahmad of the Jamat e Islami is the head of the largest religious party in the nation. Both of these leaders have tremendous potential, and they are part of the largest opposition along with Nawaz Sharif, opposing Zardari. More then likely, this coalition will take power in a few years. Only Indians and US puppets in Afghanistan propagate the Pukhtoons are not full members of Pakistan, it is this propaganda which they use to divide Pakistan against itself. Do you know that after the Mumbai attacks, all Pukhtoon tribes swore loyalty to Pakistan that if India attacks, they will provide all their warriors to help defend Pakistan?

Those proposals weren't recent. They were almost 7 years old. Karzai kept whispering in America's ear the all the militants and resistant fighters fighting Northern Alliance puppets and the US army were coming form Pakistan. He even stated that the US should team up with India to divide Pakistan between Afghanistan and India. Pakistan made the very forceful proposal to both Karzai and his Washington masters, that if they believe this is the problem, Pakistan is willing to barb wire and mine this border. Karzai then immediately backed down. Karzai needs Pakistan, because all the US troops, foreign aid, and the majority of food, water, and fuel come from Pakistan. This has been the case for hundreds of years.

It's not the Americans place to decide the internal matters between two nations. Pakistan and Afghanistan, for thousands of years, share a common culture, ethnic, ad religious bond which no amount of US invasion can break. Indeed, the people of Pakistan and Afghanistan are relatives and descended from the same Aryan people who came from Central Asia. Those type of bonds cannot be broken by a mere border. Most of the borders in Western Asia aren't sharp, but fluid. Pakistan and Afghanistan never had any hostilities with each other before, thus it serves that there is no reason to separate kinsfolk from each other in the border area. The US is here now, but a few decades in the future there will only be Pakistanis and Afghanis here. regardless however, Pakistan has done much to secure its border. Western troops are being routed in Afghanistan by Afghanis, its dishonest to blame Pakistan for the West's lack of discipline amongst its troops against a well-trained, hardened, and motivated Afghani resistance.

These numbers come from the governments of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Denouncing them as unsupported claims is deceitful. Just a few days also, a drone struck a NWFP village killing seven civilians, whose names and faces were even shown throughout newspapers and tv stations in Pakistan. The American response, that they killed one militant leader. Dead bodies don't lie.

The vast majority of drone attacks have killed civilians only. There is no proof that the ones killed were supposedly Taliban commanders. Further disproving the US assertions, film crews and government states contradict the US claims. It never right for a sovereign nation to murder innocents, never. Obama should be brought to UN courts as a war criminal.

The problem with American propaganda is that it does not differentiate between resistance fighters who only target soldiers and those who only target civilians. There are groups in Afghanistan who target solely American troops and Afghani sympathesizers, those are the rightful resistance, they are the Taliban.

Those who blow up bazaars and kill civilians represent differing groups, usually by warlords to gains US support for cracking down on their enemies, and agents of other countries such as the attacks in Pakistan.

It's the moral obligation of any nation operating in another to provide the host nation information regarding high-value targets and enemy soldiers. Pakistan has itself admitted publicly that vast majority of these attacks are being carried out without its knowledge. However, it has recently come to light that Zardari may have allowed several of these attacks to take place. The Pakistani people are now in open hostility to their government, this administration will fall soon enough. Let's see how the US contends with the next government, which won't be a complete sell-out as the present one.

Convenient excuse to interfere in Pakistan, the Afghan resistance is almost completely Afghani. There has never yet been any concrete proof that Pakistanis have been killed fighting in Afghanistan against the US, none whatsoever. When the US can concretely inform us of this, then we will consider it. Otherwise, these drone attacks are a declaration of hostility, and Pakistan must be forced to exert its sovereignty.

You are implying that a nation which allows the US airforce to refuel itself in its military bases, which allows millions of guns, ammunition, food, medicine, and armor to its troops via its territory, and which completely bend backwards to make excuses for the drone attacks on its civilians to defuse public unrest is somehow opposed to America and funding the Taliban? Are you joking?

OK, now I am almost 100% sure you are Indian.

The question is what interest does India have in Afghanistan? Those Indian RAW agents caught actively providing military aid to Bugti rebellion is proof enough that India wants to destabilize Pakistan. Not to mention, why does India need 6 military bases in the north of Pakistan? Are not the bases in the east of the LOC enough?

Right. It was Nehru, first PM of India, who attempted to bring the NWFP Pukhtoon province to oppose Pakistan, and he was met by nothing but rocks and massive anti-Congress rallies. This has always been an Indian tactic against Pakistan, to disrupt the strong tries which Pakistan enjoyed with the Pukhtoons of Afghanistan. Pakistan helped the Pukhtoons against the Soviets, when the Soviets were kidnapping their women, shooting the men in their villages, and bombing their villages. What was India doing, India was supporting the Soviets, relishing the inevitable defeat of both Afghanistan and Pakistan. You think Afghanis and Pakistanis are so naive to forget this? The only friend India has in Afghanistan are Karzai and his marginalized NA. The proof is the massive riots and torching of several Indian embassies by Pukhtoon protesters in Afghanistan. India will only find enemies in Afghanistan, the Afghani people haven't forgotten the Indian support for the invasions by the British, Soviet, and now the American invasions.

Pakistan and Afghanistan are united by their heritage and religion, and India can never match that. Support for Kashmiri freedom is as popular in Afghanistan, as it is in Pakistan.

 

And like many things you are almost 100% certain of, you are dead wrong.

But at least now we see that you have a debilitating complex when it comes to India (and other South Asian nationalities), which clouds your thinking.

This explains a lot.

 

Well explain the outright Indian propaganda coming from your post. We are talking about Afghanistan, only Indians, those of Indian descent, or Hindus would hold up the views you held, namely India's place in Afghanistan. Not to mention your anti-Pakistani rhetoric in other threads. Recently, you have been only posting in threads making comments against Islam and Pakistan, why is this?

You care to debate my post on its principles.

 

Again what feud? Bush couldn't do a thing without support from and by Congress, and a Declaration of War, which required the majority of support from Congress, which precludes any like a personnel feud.

535 members of Congress, 374 of them voting in the affirmative, authorized the Use of Force against Iraq, not the President on His own.

The invasion was authorized by a series of UN resolutions dating back to
1990.

Resolution 1441 declared that Iraq was in "material breach" of the cease-fire under UN Resolution 687 (1991), which required cooperation with weapons inspectors. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states that under certain conditions, a party may invoke a "material breach" to suspend a multilateral treaty.

Bush isn't a Imam, a Ayatollah, or a Caliph, He was a elected president of a Representative Democratic Republic, operating under U.S.Law, International Law and Treaty.

Saddam failed to complie with the Terms of UNSCR 687, for 12 years, and did not meet the requirements as set forth in that Cease Fire, which required proof under U.N. supervision that He had destroyed His weapons of mass destruction, as verified by on site inspection of U.N. Personnel.

Really?

Suicide attack kills 48 at Pakistani mosque
By RIAZ KHAN Associated Press Writer The Associated Press
Friday, March 27, 2009 8:26 AM EDT​

PESHAWAR, Pakistan (AP) — A suicide bomber demolished a mosque packed with hundreds of worshippers attending Friday prayers near the Afghan border, killing at least 48 people and injuring scores more, in the bloodiest attack in Pakistan this year. The bomber struck at the climax of the service, as the mosque leader was starting the communal prayer, witnesses said.

"As the prayer leader said 'God is Great', the bomb went off with a big bang," said Nadir Shah, a local paramilitary solider attending the mosque. "I felt it was the end of everything. Sometime later when I opened my eyes, I was lying among dead bodies."

Great Reasoning, from Muslims, blow up a Mosque and kill 48 fellow Muslims because the supply route passes in front of the Mosque?

Sunni Arab cleric killed in Iraq's Diyala province
By HAMID AHMED Associated Press Writer The Associated Press
Friday, March 27, 2009 7:20 AM EDT​

Car bomb kills at least 20 in Baghdad
By ROBERT H. REID Associated Press Writer The Associated Press
Thursday, March 26, 2009 3:03 PM EDT​

Yes, great Islamic Muslim logic, Murder other Muslims to drive the Infidels out.

I have no problem finding case after case almost daily of Muslim on Muslim murder, Shia by Sunni, Sunni by Shia, Bahai by Both Sunni and Shia, and any one else that of other religions that happens to be a target of opportunity.

The one thing is, that by far the least targeted people seem to be the U.S. Military.

A while ago I did a little research and found that by a number of 79 to 1, Muslims were dying in Iraq by suicide bombing, for every Death of U.S. soldiers from all causes, and that didn't count the shootings, and assassinations, beheadings, that were also taking place in Muslim on Muslim violence supposedly to drive out the Coalition from Iraq.

He didn't prove it as prescribed by the Cease Fire, which required U.N. inspection of all sites, and Supervision of the Destruction of all weapons, Just because Saddam was one of the Chosen of Allah didn't pull any weight as to the Veracity of His word.

Trust but Verify with Hands on Inspections.

Saddam signed the Treaty, Saddam agreed to the terms of the Cease Fire, Saddam failed to live up to the Terms of the Cease Fire Treaty, Saddam lost it all.

 

Can you provide any verification of such in the last century?

The Christian Church has been at Peace with it's self for over 300 years, a true House of Dar'al Islam, and it seem the Muslims reside in the House of Dar'al Harb.

Just as a aside may I inquire as to the nature of your religion?

I am sensing a strong Islamic Flavor to your rational.

 

never been to the emerald isle have you. Never heard how some evangelicals talk about catholics.

 

Ah yes, the Dear Old Sod, Hibernia, and just how many suicide bombing took place in Éire, it was a very localized situation, and far more of a Civil War split along those who supported the English Rule of Northern Ireland, the Protestants (for your limited intellectual benefit) and in 1970, and the paramilitary Provisional IRA, which favored the creation of a United Ireland, which was formed and began a campaign against what it called the "British occupation of the six counties", nothing religious about that.

The line split along unionist and nationalist, which mostly ran along religious line to.

But the War in Northern Ireland was not a religious war, it was a Civil War, in Northern Ireland, and sometimes involving act of terror in England and Wales.

But as a whole it is not representative of any schism in the Christian Churches, and was by far a politically inspired action rather than a Religious one.

 

funny you trying to educate me. Religion plays a large part in peoples culture. It was christians fighting christians. so no peace in christianity. What is happening in iraq is political not religious.

 

In Iraq, there is no difference between the political and the religious.

 

Again you show your lack of insight, and you could use the education, it seems your vaunted self education is sadly lacking in all areas.

Even the spidergoat, know the reality of Islam as a Political and Religious system, that is one homogeneous entity.

And again, Islam is still embroiled in a Religious War with itself, and The Troubles were a civil war, that was of a very limited scope and nature, mainly the reunification of the 6 Counties to Ireland, by the minority population of Northern Ireland, political not religious, if you can wrap your thought process around that fact.

 

There isn't any. If it looks like there is, it's because you have a serious complex with regards to India. This is not uncommon amongst Pakistanis, in my experience.

And yet I do not fall into any of those groups. So at least one of your assumptions is clearly in error.

"Place?"

I merely pointed out that Afghanistan has long sought to employ India as a counterweight against Pakistani interference in their affairs. India, for their part, seems happy to exploit Afghanistan as a rear base against Pakistan. Pakistan, naturally, is extremely leery of such cooperation, and consistently works to scuttle it.

For example, the suicide bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul last year, which Afghan, Indian and US intelligence all believe was planned, coordinated and executed by elements of Pakistani intelligence.

So one must be Indian to become impatient and disillusioned with a highly dysfunctional state that is presenting grave problems for many other countries, and is the world's worst illicit nuclear proliferator to boot?

Perhaps you should consider that it is your rosy image of Pakistan which is driven by bias.

"Against?" I'm not opposed to either of those entities as such. But I am going to call them on it when they do stupid things that cause problems for everyone. And when people try to pretend that these things aren't stupid or problematic. More to the point, I'm going to drive people who want to forward ill-posed arguments supporting this stuff crazy by subjecting their rhetoric to logic and fact.

As far as the emphasis on those particular threads, well, I go where the persistently obtuse congregate. It's not my fault that SciForums has somehow attracted a knot of extremely energetic, pathologically unreasoned posters who have over-invested their identities in both Islam and South Asian politics. If you don't want to hear from me, well, spend some time actually thinking through your beliefs, positions and statements, revise them to be reasonable, and then speak on that basis. You'll find I won't have much to say about them, then.

Lord, no. That post has me amply convinced that you aren't capable of rationally discussing Pakistan. The way you continuously elide between specific tribes and entire nations, for example, raises serious questions about your ability to put reason ahead of convenient rhetoric. Which is not an uncommon flaw around here, although I note that you, S.A.M. and StrawDog all seem to be particularly bad on that count.