Pakistan: The War of Drones
Pervez Hoodbhoy March 10, 2008
#729 Posted by MantoLives on March 16, 2008 12:56:56 am
Re: # 716
"ANP is neither a leftist nor an enlightened party.their opportunist/confused stand is well covered in Juma Khan Sufis's book on Politics of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan Vanguard Books 2005 Lahore.Juma was long time ANP leader,spent some 14 years in Kabul in exile and emerged disillusioned from ANP."
Thanks for the reference... I'll look for this book.
"ANP is neither a leftist nor an enlightened party.their opportunist/confused stand is well covered in Juma Khan Sufis's book on Politics of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan Vanguard Books 2005 Lahore.Juma was long time ANP leader,spent some 14 years in Kabul in exile and emerged disillusioned from ANP."
Thanks for the reference... I'll look for this book.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#728 Posted by HP on March 16, 2008 12:55:56 am
#716 Posted by pavocavalry
Actually the ZAB had implicated Asfand in the Hayat Sherpao’s murder and he had to leave for Kabul.
Actually the ZAB had implicated Asfand in the Hayat Sherpao’s murder and he had to leave for Kabul.
#727 Posted by HP on March 16, 2008 12:52:02 am
#716 Posted by pavocavalry
Hello Agha,
You are not going to win this argument. I know what the disputes were with Najeeb and why Bacha Khan left Kabul. It was not only Bacha Khan but even Khair Bux Marri had to come back!
You need to understand the differences between the nationalists in ANP and the Najeeb group in Kabul. When Ghaffar khan and Ajmal Khattak went to Kabul it was still under Daud. Obviously, you don't know the whole story.
But you're right that the ANP does not have influence in the tribes now.
Hello Agha,
You are not going to win this argument. I know what the disputes were with Najeeb and why Bacha Khan left Kabul. It was not only Bacha Khan but even Khair Bux Marri had to come back!
You need to understand the differences between the nationalists in ANP and the Najeeb group in Kabul. When Ghaffar khan and Ajmal Khattak went to Kabul it was still under Daud. Obviously, you don't know the whole story.
But you're right that the ANP does not have influence in the tribes now.
#726 Posted by MantoLives on March 16, 2008 12:48:44 am
Re: # 683
My good friends from across the border are busy repeating the fallacy that we know as "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc".
The history of Islamic militancy in the subcontinent is quite clearly Deobandi specific. This is why they need to come up with a fatwa in the first place. Barelvi Islam - the adherents of which formed the mainbody of those TNT-ists everyone here loves to hate- never considered terrorism and militancy halal.
I don't like repeating the history lesson but I am afraid I have no option because such lies and misinformation should not go unchecked.
Achyuth Patwardhan, one of the Socialist stalwarts in the Congress, has given a remarkably candid and self critical analysis of the Congress Party vis-a-vis Khilafat: ’It is, however, useful to recognise our share of this error of misdirection. To begin with, I am convinced that looking back upon the course of development of the freedom movement, THE ’HIMALAYAN ERROR’ of Gandhiji’s leadership was the support he extended on behalf of the Congress and the Indian people to the Khilafat Movement at the end of the World War I. This has proved to be a disastrous error which has brought in its wake a series of harmful consequences. On merits, it was a thoroughly reactionary step. The Khilafat was totally unworthy of support of the Progressive Muslims. Kemel Pasha established this solid fact by abolition of the Khilafat. The abolition of the Khilafat was widely welcomed by enlightened Muslim opinion the world over and Kemel was an undoubted hero of all young Muslims straining against Imperialist domination. But apart from the fact that Khilafat was an unworthy reactionary cause, Mahatma Gandhi had to align himself with a sectarian revivalist Muslim Leadership of clerics and maulvis. He was thus unwittingly responsible for jettisoning sane, secular, modernist leadership among the Muslims of India and foisting upon the Indian Muslims a theocratic orthodoxy of the Maulvis. Maulana Mohammed Ali’s speeches read today appear strangely incoherent and out of tune with the spirit of secular political freedom. The Congress Movement which released the forces of religious liberalism and reform among the Hindus, and evoked a rational scientific outlook, placed the Muslims of India under the spell of orthodoxy and religious superstition by their support to the Khilafat leadership. Rationalist leaders like Jinnah were rebuffed by this attitude of Congress and Gandhi. This is the background of the psychological rift between Congress and the Muslim League’.
and
’Since the Khilafat agitation, things have changed and it has been one of the many injuries inflicted on India by the encouragement of the Khilafat crusade, that the inner Muslim feeling of hatred against ’unbelievers’ has sprung up, naked and unashamed, as in years gone by’.
and
A terrible and gruesome fallout of the disastrous Khilafat experiment of Mahatma Gandhi was the Moplah Rebellion in Malabar District in 1921. According to the Report of the ENQUIRY COMMITTEE OF SERVANTS OF INDIA SOCIETY, the number of Hindus murdered by Moplah Muslims was 1500, the number of Hindus forcibly converted 20,000 and the value of property looted about Rs three crore. When the national and local leaders appealed to the virulently anti-Hindu Moplah Muslims in the name of Mahatma Gandhi to follow the ways of peace and non-violence, they replied bluntly with Islamic fervour: ’GANDHI IS A KAFIR, HOW CAN HE BE OUR LEADER?’ Dr Anne Besant declared: ’The Moplah Muslim marauders murdered and plundered abundantly, killed or drove away all Hindus who would not apostatize. Somewhere about 100,000 people were driven from their homes with nothing but the clothes they had on, stripped of everything’. She also accused all the Khilafat religious preachers for all this terrible atrocities. J Campbell, chief of the Intelligence Department, Government of India, held the Khilafat leaders squarely responsible for inciting racial hatred resulting in Moplah carnage.
http://www.newstodaynet.com/2006sud/06aug/2208ss1.htm
Mahatma Gandhi’s attempt to harness the feeling for the cause of national independence backfired and led to the uprising in Kerala known as the Moplah Rebellion. It took the British several months to put it down at the cost of thousands of lives.
Moplahs were very much part of the grand Khilafat Movement that Gandhi was spearheading and Gandhi kept apologising for them
The Dravidian Moplahs had directed their revolt with class venom against some Aryan high-caste Hindus with property as well as Britishers: Brahmanical elements tried to use that to spark a crisis in Hindu-Muslim relations all over India. Gandhi tried to hold a balance: like the U.S. press and the Negro nationalists who read it he stressed that the Moplah uprising could be made part of a united drive for independence by Indians of all sects.But he was also aware of the pan-Islamic dimension: in a December 1921 call to the British to suspend their attacks against the Moplahs, he was to observe that the Moplahs saw themselves as fighting for a religion with methods they considered religious: Yogesh Chadha, Rediscovering Gandhi (London: Century 1997) p. 254.
And lets not forget the Tehreek-e-Hijrat Fatwa that Gandhi’s right hand man Azad gave to Muslims which gave Muslims two options "JEHAD" or "HIJRAT".
The Muslim Ulema, thinkers and activists called for the boycott of foreign goods and non-cooperation with the British government. Meetings were organised in order to rally the masses to support these issues. The meetings were organised under the banner of Mo’tamar al-Ansar (The Workers Conference) and various newspapers such as Al-Hilal of Maualana Abul Kalam Azad and The Comrade of Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar. Both Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad and Maulana Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar were put behind bars for publishing anti-British articles in their newspapers. The latter spent four years in prison between 1911 and 1915CE.
The allegiance of the Muslim intelligentsia of India at that to the Khilafah is unquestionable. Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad summed up their view when he wrote in his newspaper al-Hilal on 6th November 1912 that the Ottoman Sultans possessed the only sword which Muslims had for their protection. Insofar as the “caliphate was essentially a religious integration of the shari’a”, it became “necessary by revelation, is of God’s institution and that obedience to its authority is farz, or positively commanded”.
The Khilafat Movement
In September 1919, Maulana Muhammad Ali and his brother Shaukat Ali, together with Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, Dr. Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari, and Hasrat Mohani, started a new organization, the Khilafat Movement (1919-1924). Their avowed aim was to use whatever leverage they had to protect the Khilafah. They organized Khilafat Conferences in several northern Indian cities. It is noticeable that the scholars and activists that were part of the Khilafat movement came from different schools of thought and backgrounds, for example Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was known to be a ‘ghayr taqleedi’ (non-taqleedi – who believed Taqleed to Mazahib is prohibited) and Maulana Mahmood Hasan was Deobandi who are followers of the Hanafi Mazhab yet they were united in the objective of working for the maintenance of the Khilafah.
In 1919, the Bombay Khilafat Committee agreed on two important organisational goals: “first, to urge the retention of the temporal powers of the Sultan of Turkey as Caliph, and second to ensure his continued suzerainty over the Islamic holy places.”
Delivering the presidential address at the Calcutta meeting of the Bengal Provincial Khilafat Conference in 1920, Maulana Azad discussed the importance of Khilafah he declared, “the purpose of this institution was to organise and lead the Muslim community in the right path, to establish justice, to bring about peace, and to spread God’s word in the world. For all this it was absolutely necessary for the caliph to possess temporal power”. Maulana Azad had no doubt that “without an Imam, their lives were un-Islamic and that they would be damned after death”.
Maulana Azad published a book in 1920 called Masla-e-Khilafat (The Issue of Khilafah), he stated: “Without the Khilafah the existence of Islam is not possible, the Muslims of India with all their effort and power need to work for this”.
In the same book page 176 Maulana Azad said, “There are two types of ahkam shariah, the first is related to the individual like the commands and prohibitions, the fara’id (obligations) and wajibat in order to perfect oneself. The second is not related to the individual but is related to the Ummah, nation, collective obligations and state politics like the conquering of lands, political and economic laws”.
According to Peter Hardy, Maulana Azad believed that, “The Muslim who would separate religion and politics for Muslims is an apostate who works silently”.
The loss of political power in India and the threat posed by a combination of forces to the temporal authority of the caliph, was so worrisome for the leaders of the Muslim community that some of them felt compelled to issue fatwas ‘in favour of migration (hijra)’ from India.
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad issued a fatwa which was published in the daily Ahl-e-Hadith of Amritsar on 30 July 1920. In his fatwa he urged Hijrat from India as an alternative to non-cooperation with the British. (YLH’s note: Was the Hijaz Born Azad a "Wahabi"... note "Ahle-Hadith)
Maulana Abdul Bari’s fatwa said, “every Muslim residing here should adopt non-cooperation but if (that is) impossible, should proceed for hijrat”. Maulana Shaukat Ali issued a statement on behalf of the Central Khilafat Committee, “expressing the hope that all dedicated Muslims would stay in India and work for the non-cooperation. Only if it did not succeed would they consider resorting to hijrat”. The impact of the fatwa was electrifying and thousands of Muslims preferred to leave the Dar al harb of India where their religious rights symbolized in the position of the Turkish Caliph was being infringed.
And most amazing was the fact that Gandhi’s encouragement led to Deobandi ulema creating the Jamiat ulema Hind ... which in its numerous forms and heads plagues South Asia even today... and all these groups are spin offs of the same.
My good friends from across the border are busy repeating the fallacy that we know as "Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc".
The history of Islamic militancy in the subcontinent is quite clearly Deobandi specific. This is why they need to come up with a fatwa in the first place. Barelvi Islam - the adherents of which formed the mainbody of those TNT-ists everyone here loves to hate- never considered terrorism and militancy halal.
I don't like repeating the history lesson but I am afraid I have no option because such lies and misinformation should not go unchecked.
Achyuth Patwardhan, one of the Socialist stalwarts in the Congress, has given a remarkably candid and self critical analysis of the Congress Party vis-a-vis Khilafat: ’It is, however, useful to recognise our share of this error of misdirection. To begin with, I am convinced that looking back upon the course of development of the freedom movement, THE ’HIMALAYAN ERROR’ of Gandhiji’s leadership was the support he extended on behalf of the Congress and the Indian people to the Khilafat Movement at the end of the World War I. This has proved to be a disastrous error which has brought in its wake a series of harmful consequences. On merits, it was a thoroughly reactionary step. The Khilafat was totally unworthy of support of the Progressive Muslims. Kemel Pasha established this solid fact by abolition of the Khilafat. The abolition of the Khilafat was widely welcomed by enlightened Muslim opinion the world over and Kemel was an undoubted hero of all young Muslims straining against Imperialist domination. But apart from the fact that Khilafat was an unworthy reactionary cause, Mahatma Gandhi had to align himself with a sectarian revivalist Muslim Leadership of clerics and maulvis. He was thus unwittingly responsible for jettisoning sane, secular, modernist leadership among the Muslims of India and foisting upon the Indian Muslims a theocratic orthodoxy of the Maulvis. Maulana Mohammed Ali’s speeches read today appear strangely incoherent and out of tune with the spirit of secular political freedom. The Congress Movement which released the forces of religious liberalism and reform among the Hindus, and evoked a rational scientific outlook, placed the Muslims of India under the spell of orthodoxy and religious superstition by their support to the Khilafat leadership. Rationalist leaders like Jinnah were rebuffed by this attitude of Congress and Gandhi. This is the background of the psychological rift between Congress and the Muslim League’.
and
’Since the Khilafat agitation, things have changed and it has been one of the many injuries inflicted on India by the encouragement of the Khilafat crusade, that the inner Muslim feeling of hatred against ’unbelievers’ has sprung up, naked and unashamed, as in years gone by’.
and
A terrible and gruesome fallout of the disastrous Khilafat experiment of Mahatma Gandhi was the Moplah Rebellion in Malabar District in 1921. According to the Report of the ENQUIRY COMMITTEE OF SERVANTS OF INDIA SOCIETY, the number of Hindus murdered by Moplah Muslims was 1500, the number of Hindus forcibly converted 20,000 and the value of property looted about Rs three crore. When the national and local leaders appealed to the virulently anti-Hindu Moplah Muslims in the name of Mahatma Gandhi to follow the ways of peace and non-violence, they replied bluntly with Islamic fervour: ’GANDHI IS A KAFIR, HOW CAN HE BE OUR LEADER?’ Dr Anne Besant declared: ’The Moplah Muslim marauders murdered and plundered abundantly, killed or drove away all Hindus who would not apostatize. Somewhere about 100,000 people were driven from their homes with nothing but the clothes they had on, stripped of everything’. She also accused all the Khilafat religious preachers for all this terrible atrocities. J Campbell, chief of the Intelligence Department, Government of India, held the Khilafat leaders squarely responsible for inciting racial hatred resulting in Moplah carnage.
http://www.newstodaynet.com/2006sud/06aug/2208ss1.htm
Mahatma Gandhi’s attempt to harness the feeling for the cause of national independence backfired and led to the uprising in Kerala known as the Moplah Rebellion. It took the British several months to put it down at the cost of thousands of lives.
Moplahs were very much part of the grand Khilafat Movement that Gandhi was spearheading and Gandhi kept apologising for them
The Dravidian Moplahs had directed their revolt with class venom against some Aryan high-caste Hindus with property as well as Britishers: Brahmanical elements tried to use that to spark a crisis in Hindu-Muslim relations all over India. Gandhi tried to hold a balance: like the U.S. press and the Negro nationalists who read it he stressed that the Moplah uprising could be made part of a united drive for independence by Indians of all sects.But he was also aware of the pan-Islamic dimension: in a December 1921 call to the British to suspend their attacks against the Moplahs, he was to observe that the Moplahs saw themselves as fighting for a religion with methods they considered religious: Yogesh Chadha, Rediscovering Gandhi (London: Century 1997) p. 254.
And lets not forget the Tehreek-e-Hijrat Fatwa that Gandhi’s right hand man Azad gave to Muslims which gave Muslims two options "JEHAD" or "HIJRAT".
The Muslim Ulema, thinkers and activists called for the boycott of foreign goods and non-cooperation with the British government. Meetings were organised in order to rally the masses to support these issues. The meetings were organised under the banner of Mo’tamar al-Ansar (The Workers Conference) and various newspapers such as Al-Hilal of Maualana Abul Kalam Azad and The Comrade of Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar. Both Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad and Maulana Maulana Mohammad Ali Jauhar were put behind bars for publishing anti-British articles in their newspapers. The latter spent four years in prison between 1911 and 1915CE.
The allegiance of the Muslim intelligentsia of India at that to the Khilafah is unquestionable. Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad summed up their view when he wrote in his newspaper al-Hilal on 6th November 1912 that the Ottoman Sultans possessed the only sword which Muslims had for their protection. Insofar as the “caliphate was essentially a religious integration of the shari’a”, it became “necessary by revelation, is of God’s institution and that obedience to its authority is farz, or positively commanded”.
The Khilafat Movement
In September 1919, Maulana Muhammad Ali and his brother Shaukat Ali, together with Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, Dr. Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari, and Hasrat Mohani, started a new organization, the Khilafat Movement (1919-1924). Their avowed aim was to use whatever leverage they had to protect the Khilafah. They organized Khilafat Conferences in several northern Indian cities. It is noticeable that the scholars and activists that were part of the Khilafat movement came from different schools of thought and backgrounds, for example Maulana Abul Kalam Azad was known to be a ‘ghayr taqleedi’ (non-taqleedi – who believed Taqleed to Mazahib is prohibited) and Maulana Mahmood Hasan was Deobandi who are followers of the Hanafi Mazhab yet they were united in the objective of working for the maintenance of the Khilafah.
In 1919, the Bombay Khilafat Committee agreed on two important organisational goals: “first, to urge the retention of the temporal powers of the Sultan of Turkey as Caliph, and second to ensure his continued suzerainty over the Islamic holy places.”
Delivering the presidential address at the Calcutta meeting of the Bengal Provincial Khilafat Conference in 1920, Maulana Azad discussed the importance of Khilafah he declared, “the purpose of this institution was to organise and lead the Muslim community in the right path, to establish justice, to bring about peace, and to spread God’s word in the world. For all this it was absolutely necessary for the caliph to possess temporal power”. Maulana Azad had no doubt that “without an Imam, their lives were un-Islamic and that they would be damned after death”.
Maulana Azad published a book in 1920 called Masla-e-Khilafat (The Issue of Khilafah), he stated: “Without the Khilafah the existence of Islam is not possible, the Muslims of India with all their effort and power need to work for this”.
In the same book page 176 Maulana Azad said, “There are two types of ahkam shariah, the first is related to the individual like the commands and prohibitions, the fara’id (obligations) and wajibat in order to perfect oneself. The second is not related to the individual but is related to the Ummah, nation, collective obligations and state politics like the conquering of lands, political and economic laws”.
According to Peter Hardy, Maulana Azad believed that, “The Muslim who would separate religion and politics for Muslims is an apostate who works silently”.
The loss of political power in India and the threat posed by a combination of forces to the temporal authority of the caliph, was so worrisome for the leaders of the Muslim community that some of them felt compelled to issue fatwas ‘in favour of migration (hijra)’ from India.
Maulana Abul Kalam Azad issued a fatwa which was published in the daily Ahl-e-Hadith of Amritsar on 30 July 1920. In his fatwa he urged Hijrat from India as an alternative to non-cooperation with the British. (YLH’s note: Was the Hijaz Born Azad a "Wahabi"... note "Ahle-Hadith)
Maulana Abdul Bari’s fatwa said, “every Muslim residing here should adopt non-cooperation but if (that is) impossible, should proceed for hijrat”. Maulana Shaukat Ali issued a statement on behalf of the Central Khilafat Committee, “expressing the hope that all dedicated Muslims would stay in India and work for the non-cooperation. Only if it did not succeed would they consider resorting to hijrat”. The impact of the fatwa was electrifying and thousands of Muslims preferred to leave the Dar al harb of India where their religious rights symbolized in the position of the Turkish Caliph was being infringed.
And most amazing was the fact that Gandhi’s encouragement led to Deobandi ulema creating the Jamiat ulema Hind ... which in its numerous forms and heads plagues South Asia even today... and all these groups are spin offs of the same.
#725 Posted by SR on March 16, 2008 12:35:41 am
Re: # 705 HP wrote: ["... Self contradictory statement
And what is the establishment made of? How do you [propose to change that?
Sorry you can’t figure out how to change the STATE APPARATUS, please don’t scream!..."]
Alright, I won't scream. But WHO is saying anything about changing the STATE APPARATUS? I certainly did not.
I wrote that it can not be changed. It will have to be dismantled. It SHOULD be disemboweled.
The powerful federal center is a monster that MUST be killed. The least painful way to do that is to devolve power in the real sense.
Absolute autonomy to the smaller units is the minimum first step. Even the provincial level is still too centralised. Autonomy should extend to the district in matters of local adminsitration. Only things like planning, agriculture, energy, health and education should be at the provincial level.
A small and loose confederation should consist of a cooperative council of the provinces that regulates things like issuance of currency and foreign relations. The president of the union can be a rotating chair that is occupied for a year by one of the provincial leaders. The armed forces should be largely disbanded and be limited a token honor guard for parades on March 23rd.
A small strategic defence division should be left intact to control the atomic bombs for the interim while the political leadership should begin nuclear disarmament plans right away.
The powerful centralised state is a cancer that is eating the country alive. This parasite MUST be terminated.
These are my feelings, not the ones you assumed.
...SR
And what is the establishment made of? How do you [propose to change that?
Sorry you can’t figure out how to change the STATE APPARATUS, please don’t scream!..."]
Alright, I won't scream. But WHO is saying anything about changing the STATE APPARATUS? I certainly did not.
I wrote that it can not be changed. It will have to be dismantled. It SHOULD be disemboweled.
The powerful federal center is a monster that MUST be killed. The least painful way to do that is to devolve power in the real sense.
Absolute autonomy to the smaller units is the minimum first step. Even the provincial level is still too centralised. Autonomy should extend to the district in matters of local adminsitration. Only things like planning, agriculture, energy, health and education should be at the provincial level.
A small and loose confederation should consist of a cooperative council of the provinces that regulates things like issuance of currency and foreign relations. The president of the union can be a rotating chair that is occupied for a year by one of the provincial leaders. The armed forces should be largely disbanded and be limited a token honor guard for parades on March 23rd.
A small strategic defence division should be left intact to control the atomic bombs for the interim while the political leadership should begin nuclear disarmament plans right away.
The powerful centralised state is a cancer that is eating the country alive. This parasite MUST be terminated.
These are my feelings, not the ones you assumed.
...SR
#724 Posted by ijaz_gul on March 16, 2008 12:10:25 am
Lets admit that modernity and capital maximisation has caught on with the masterminds of militants. The ones lobbying grenades, setting off explosive devices and Drones on two legs are just being used. They are pawns.
#723 Posted by pavocavalry on March 16, 2008 12:10:07 am
Guerrilla warfare as perfected by Sivaji, the father of modern guerrilla warfare was a savage and protracted affair and it took about eighty years to succeed even at that time! A rudimentary glance at guerrilla warfare’s history proves that guerrilla warfare is a story of successes as well as failures. A Guerrilla war in order to succeed must be fought in an environment in which both internal, local and international conditions favour it. Imam Shamyl who led the Daghestanis war of resistance against the Russian Czars was one of the most charismatic and brilliant leaders in the history of guerrilla war. Yet Shamyl failed and finally died as a prisoner under house arrest in European Russia. The international conditions did not favour Shamyl’s war and the great man despite all the valour and advantages of adverse terrain failed! Almost during the same time the Greeks were successful in attaining independence since West European powers specially Britain actively helped them. Around the same time, the Armenians, another Christian people failed to attain independence since no external power favoured their cause! Sandino of Nicaragua was a great guerrilla leader of Central American history! He eluded the US Marines who hopelessly tried for a long time to militarily defeat him but was finally treacherously killed by the Somozas. Nicaragua had to wait for many more decades to evict the Somoza dynasty till the late 1970s. Local conditions favoured guerrilla warfare but international conditions were against it and USA was bent at all cost to defeat any radical movement in Central America. Cuba with the particular Cold war tension of the late fifties and early sixties was the only guerrilla success story in South and Central America. The Basmachis also failed for similar reasons to defeat the USSR in Central Asia in the 1920s and 1930s. Biafara was yet another failure of a secessionist movement. The worst story of failure of guerrilla warfare can be found in Kurdistan where the brave Kurds despite being morally right, ethnically homogeneous and terrain wise well placed have failed to create an independent Kurdistan. Local conditions favour them but international conditions by virtue of being divided into three different countries as well as lack of open superpower support has so far doomed their struggle. I do not think there is any braver race in the Middle East than this warrior race that produced a Saladin! But all the valour and sacrifice of many decades has so far not brought them any success! Balochistan is yet another failure story of guerrilla warfare. Local conditions favoured the guerrillas in Balochistan in the 1970s but international conditions were against them and those indomitable men who were superior in minor tactics than any Afghan Mujahideen group failed in the final reckoning! They failed not because they lacked valour or because of tactical incompetence but simply because they did not get a billion dollar aid package from a super power and all important neighbouring countries did not actively help them! Malaya is yet another example of failure. Distance from Mainland China, ethnic composition of the local population and international involvement doomed the cause of the extremely brave, motivated and tactically sound, Chinese Communist guerrilla warriors of Malaysia. Che Guevera an extremely charismatic and brilliant guerrilla leader is yet another example of failure in guerrilla wars. Che drew wrong conclusions from the successes of the Cuban revolution and paid it with his life while trying to bring a similar revolution in Bolivia through guerrilla war! The ethnic logistic as well as internal conditions of Bolivia were different from Cuba and did not favour guerrilla warfare. The population was largely Mestizo (Red Indian/European mixed) and was far more conservative than Cuba. Distance from main external base country was so great that logistically it was difficult to support Che’s brilliant war from outside.
#722 Posted by SR on March 16, 2008 12:05:07 am
Re: # 694 HP wrote: ["... mistake you make in your analysis..."]
Mine was no analysis... I clearly wrote that was my conjecture... There simply isn't enough data yet to form a cogent hypothesis. You assume too much.
HP wrote: ["... you assume that there is one well organized group in Pakistan ..."]
Again, it is YOU who is assuming what I allegedly assumed. This was quite a baseless assertion and it betrays your personal prejudice not anything I've written.
HP wrote: ["...Nothing of that sort exists. There are many groups and they are going out in their crazy and criminal pursuits of some undefined goals.."]
Perfectly reasonable statement. No problems with anything in it. I agree.
HP wrote: ["...In their frustration after being rejected by the people, they have started bombing..."]
Now THIS is what seems more like an analysis or a theory that you are forwarding.
"Hey, THEY (people) have rejected US, so lets go bomb them."
Oooookay... That's a point of view, but a rather two dimensional one. It seems to assume a "one well organised group" in Pakistan that is going around bombing (since Feb 18th) Surely the bombs before the "people's rejection" could not be a result of THEIR "frustration" with the people. Do you not see the fallacy of your argument here. Are you not doing yourself what you mistakenly attribute to me?
HP wrote:["...You must be really weak-kneed that some thugs and criminals intimidate you..."]
Oh yes, sir, no questions. I am a yellow blooded, weak kneed, certified coward. Happy?
...SR
Mine was no analysis... I clearly wrote that was my conjecture... There simply isn't enough data yet to form a cogent hypothesis. You assume too much.
HP wrote: ["... you assume that there is one well organized group in Pakistan ..."]
Again, it is YOU who is assuming what I allegedly assumed. This was quite a baseless assertion and it betrays your personal prejudice not anything I've written.
HP wrote: ["...Nothing of that sort exists. There are many groups and they are going out in their crazy and criminal pursuits of some undefined goals.."]
Perfectly reasonable statement. No problems with anything in it. I agree.
HP wrote: ["...In their frustration after being rejected by the people, they have started bombing..."]
Now THIS is what seems more like an analysis or a theory that you are forwarding.
"Hey, THEY (people) have rejected US, so lets go bomb them."
Oooookay... That's a point of view, but a rather two dimensional one. It seems to assume a "one well organised group" in Pakistan that is going around bombing (since Feb 18th) Surely the bombs before the "people's rejection" could not be a result of THEIR "frustration" with the people. Do you not see the fallacy of your argument here. Are you not doing yourself what you mistakenly attribute to me?
HP wrote:["...You must be really weak-kneed that some thugs and criminals intimidate you..."]
Oh yes, sir, no questions. I am a yellow blooded, weak kneed, certified coward. Happy?
...SR
#721 Posted by pavocavalry on March 16, 2008 12:00:58 am
Another point of interest.Many Talibs I met are old Khalqi leftists.They told me that they had no choice but to grow beards and be Talibs .That they said was the need of the day.Mulla Borjan initially the main leader of Talibs was a regular Afghan army officer from the military academy " Harbi Pontoon" and a Khalqi .He became a Talib.It has been alleged that he was killed in a plot with links to the Paki int agencies.
On the other hand the Soviets had successfully infiltrated and converted the Jamiat by blackmailing them that they were a minority and could not survive without Soviet and later Russian support.So the Northern Alliance was more Russian infiltrated and the Talibs more Pakistan infiltrated.
Both the Northern Alliance and Talibs are not as bad as portrayed.All acted rightly for the right reasons.The ISI mishandled the Northern Alliance because those in high and medium positions were empty windbags with little intellect.
Tailpiece:-- When Akhtar Rahman left ISI he destroyed most of the records because of professional jealousy against Hamid Gul.Hamid Gul off course had a much better intellect and character.No projection of any one , since I was at logger heads with him always , but still we must state things as they are or were.
On the other hand the Soviets had successfully infiltrated and converted the Jamiat by blackmailing them that they were a minority and could not survive without Soviet and later Russian support.So the Northern Alliance was more Russian infiltrated and the Talibs more Pakistan infiltrated.
Both the Northern Alliance and Talibs are not as bad as portrayed.All acted rightly for the right reasons.The ISI mishandled the Northern Alliance because those in high and medium positions were empty windbags with little intellect.
Tailpiece:-- When Akhtar Rahman left ISI he destroyed most of the records because of professional jealousy against Hamid Gul.Hamid Gul off course had a much better intellect and character.No projection of any one , since I was at logger heads with him always , but still we must state things as they are or were.
#720 Posted by pavocavalry on March 15, 2008 11:54:06 pm
the taliban also have shadow governors in many provinces in the south , the general rule is that they are free to manoeuvre after 1400 hours or 1500 hours in the afternoon and southern parts of Helmand Kandahar and Nimroz Province for almost 24 hours.HP should visit Afghanistan . We can have some good scotch and then I take him around.He is a well meaning man although his wit is sometimes soo salty.
#719 Posted by pavocavalry on March 15, 2008 11:50:55 pm
all guerrilla warfare is based on " HIT AND RUN" , a person should visit afghanistan before stating that taliban control an area or not .the important fact is that USA has already acknowledged 10 % of Afghanistan is under Taliban conrol.More important they have admitted , the US , that the Kabul government controls just 30 % . The major problem in recognising Taliban is that any one can be a Talib .The Pashtuns generally dress the same way and many Talibs even shave off their beards for operational reasons.The rule of the thumb is that Talibs are strong in parts of Kunar , Tagab district of Kapisa,Muqur district Ghazni , 90 % of Zabul province , 80 % of Helmand Province,60 % of Farah Province , 50 % of Kandahar Province , 80 % of Uruzgan Province , 30 % of Khost , 35 % of Paktika.Theirs is a nuisance value.Every company who wants to work in the Pashtun area has to set aside at least 10 % to 15 % for security.
#718 Posted by zeemax on March 15, 2008 11:39:08 pm
#716 Posted by pavocavalry,
And then the blood of Sherpao.ANP used an activist from Amazo Garhi (Garhi Kapura) in Mardan to do it . ______ Bacha , well meaning guy although wrongly motivated did that . I think I met him one time in East Germany.Hayat Sherpao was a really great man.
Pavo, you actually know who killed Hayat Mohammad Khan Sherpao????? That incident was the death of NWFP. ANP (NAP at that time) killed him that much I know, but didn't know who exactly. ANP are opportunist hindu-loving traitors.
And then the blood of Sherpao.ANP used an activist from Amazo Garhi (Garhi Kapura) in Mardan to do it . ______ Bacha , well meaning guy although wrongly motivated did that . I think I met him one time in East Germany.Hayat Sherpao was a really great man.
Pavo, you actually know who killed Hayat Mohammad Khan Sherpao????? That incident was the death of NWFP. ANP (NAP at that time) killed him that much I know, but didn't know who exactly. ANP are opportunist hindu-loving traitors.
#717 Posted by zeemax on March 15, 2008 11:33:08 pm
#714/715 Posted by HP
Taliban in Afghanistan are hit and run group and don't have the resources to control an area.
On what do you base this statement Sir? According to the last report out of US I saw, Taliban control all of Helmand province (which is the largest poppy cultivating area) and overall about 50% of Afghanistan. I would be glad to be corrected.
However, that does not support your implication that they are not fighting against the State. which they are!
No! They've only started to fight the Pakistani State/Army (which have so far been the same thing) after they attacked them. If Pakistani establishment stops attacking them, so will they.
I think you are just way too impressed with these criminals and their stories. For some even mafia is romantic!
That is partly correct. I think these people live a life much better than eating, sleeping and counting notches in fcking women. Their life has a purpose. We live like dogs.
Taliban in Afghanistan are hit and run group and don't have the resources to control an area.
On what do you base this statement Sir? According to the last report out of US I saw, Taliban control all of Helmand province (which is the largest poppy cultivating area) and overall about 50% of Afghanistan. I would be glad to be corrected.
However, that does not support your implication that they are not fighting against the State. which they are!
No! They've only started to fight the Pakistani State/Army (which have so far been the same thing) after they attacked them. If Pakistani establishment stops attacking them, so will they.
I think you are just way too impressed with these criminals and their stories. For some even mafia is romantic!
That is partly correct. I think these people live a life much better than eating, sleeping and counting notches in fcking women. Their life has a purpose. We live like dogs.
#716 Posted by pavocavalry on March 15, 2008 11:20:54 pm
one thing is very clear , the ANP has little clout in tribal areas except some afridi leaders in parts of khyber agency and afridis have had little part in the main insurgency in tribal areas in the last 4 years.
ANP is neither a leftist nor an enlightened party.their opportunist/confused stand is well covered in Juma Khan Sufis's book on Politics of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan Vanguard Books 2005 Lahore.Juma was long time ANP leader,spent some 14 years in Kabul in exile and emerged disillusioned from ANP.
Late Dr Najeeb Shaheed of Afghanistan questioned ANP in Kabul , why did you sign the constitution of 1973 and then you come here and talk that you are against Pakistan.Daud Khan, Najeeb etc all saw the partys opportunist stand.And then the blood of Sherpao.ANP used an activist from Amazo Garhi (Garhi Kapura) in Mardan to do it . ______ Bacha , well meaning guy although wrongly motivated did that . I think I met him one time in East Germany.Hayat Sherpao was a really great man.
The Pashtuns are revolutionary but in the long term they dont like opportunists.
ANP is neither a leftist nor an enlightened party.their opportunist/confused stand is well covered in Juma Khan Sufis's book on Politics of Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan Vanguard Books 2005 Lahore.Juma was long time ANP leader,spent some 14 years in Kabul in exile and emerged disillusioned from ANP.
Late Dr Najeeb Shaheed of Afghanistan questioned ANP in Kabul , why did you sign the constitution of 1973 and then you come here and talk that you are against Pakistan.Daud Khan, Najeeb etc all saw the partys opportunist stand.And then the blood of Sherpao.ANP used an activist from Amazo Garhi (Garhi Kapura) in Mardan to do it . ______ Bacha , well meaning guy although wrongly motivated did that . I think I met him one time in East Germany.Hayat Sherpao was a really great man.
The Pashtuns are revolutionary but in the long term they dont like opportunists.
#715 Posted by HP on March 15, 2008 11:19:21 pm
#713 Posted by zeemax
No one said that the majority of tribes and population in the area is not pro Pakistan. The FATA taliabn would lose support if they say anything against Pakistan and these criminals know it.
However, that does not support your implication that they are not fighting against the State. which they are! Otoh, Pakistan citizens can be criminals too.
Kaal is not a good example to bring in this debate as he said he does not know enough history to even understand what I wrote on Nawaiwaqt thread! He certainly does not know Pakistan better than me or you!
""We shall not allow Pakistan soil to be used for anyone to help NATO in Afghanistan"."
Non sense! Who are they to make this decision? I think you are just way too impressed with these criminals and their stories. For some even mafia is romantic!
No one said that the majority of tribes and population in the area is not pro Pakistan. The FATA taliabn would lose support if they say anything against Pakistan and these criminals know it.
However, that does not support your implication that they are not fighting against the State. which they are! Otoh, Pakistan citizens can be criminals too.
Kaal is not a good example to bring in this debate as he said he does not know enough history to even understand what I wrote on Nawaiwaqt thread! He certainly does not know Pakistan better than me or you!
""We shall not allow Pakistan soil to be used for anyone to help NATO in Afghanistan"."
Non sense! Who are they to make this decision? I think you are just way too impressed with these criminals and their stories. For some even mafia is romantic!
#714 Posted by HP on March 15, 2008 11:10:39 pm
I called it a stretch. Here is what I said and please don't use statements out of context.
"In Afghanistan they are fighting a foreign occupation so their tactics there can be justified, even though that would be a stretch too
"they control the largest single tract of poppy cultivation in Afghanistan in Helmand) "
The tribes in Pakistan have controlled the drug trade. It was taken away from them after the afghan war was over in the late 80s. They got it back by supporting the taliban and now it is out of their control. Taliban don't control any area in Afghanistan in Helmand or anywhere else.
Taliban in Afghanistan are hit and run group and don't have the resources to control an area.
"In Afghanistan they are fighting a foreign occupation so their tactics there can be justified, even though that would be a stretch too
"they control the largest single tract of poppy cultivation in Afghanistan in Helmand) "
The tribes in Pakistan have controlled the drug trade. It was taken away from them after the afghan war was over in the late 80s. They got it back by supporting the taliban and now it is out of their control. Taliban don't control any area in Afghanistan in Helmand or anywhere else.
Taliban in Afghanistan are hit and run group and don't have the resources to control an area.