Afghan Refugees op/ed by Ambassador Tariq Osman Hyder

[Rational Philosopher]

All law is based on morality.....

No it isn't. Law is based on popular consensus and morality itself is completely subjective by individual. There is no moral handbook everyone follows.

There have been some very immoral laws in certain nations throughout history by popular opinion. Yet the law was the law. And I'm sure it will happen in the future too.

 

[Rational Philosopher]

Loy Afghanistan may have been a desire of few Afghan irredentists, it was never a major problem for Pakistan as Pakistani Pakhtuns and Baloch have their own strong identity and history. The few skirmishes with Afghanistan in 1950s and 1960's does not justify 50 years of full blown war that Pakistan engaged in Afghanistan post 1970s, which ended up hurting Pakistan enormously. Its called mishandling an issue.

The Afghans are not begging, they are already citizens of Pakistan and will remain citizens no matter how much you rage about it on the internet. The drugs and militancy and gangsterism that is the result of Afghan policy will also continue hurting Pakistan. Keep enjoying all of this.

Okay buddy. We are both here. Let's see what happens.

The Afghans cannot keep themselves out of trouble and I'm certain they have more misery lined up for themselves. Let's enjoy whatever happens lmao.

 

[Watandar]

Okay buddy. We are both here. Let's see what happens.

The Afghans cannot keep themselves out of trouble and I'm certain they have more misery lined up for themselves. Let's enjoy whatever happens lmao.

Misery in Afghanistan will find its way to Pakistan, while peace in Afghanistan will find its way to Pakistan. Thats what you people simply don't get.

 

[krash]

No it isn't. Law is based on popular consensus and morality itself is completely subjective by individual. There is no moral handbook everyone follows.

Incorrect. The entire basis of a legal system is derived from the basic moral principle of providing protection to the citizens against injustice. Whenever any law goes against moral principles, it is, as should be, opposed legally and changed. It is supposed to provide protection against the opinions of the majority. Otherwise, ill-educated societies such as Pakistan can impose whatever fits their ill-educated understanding. Plenty of examples of that in the Pakistani legal system as well.

There have been some very immoral laws in certain nations throughout history by popular opinion. Yet the law was the law. And I'm sure it will happen in the future too.

And those laws were and will continue to be revoked and remembered as such, in any sensible society, after being deemed immoral.

 

[Asfandyar Bhittani]

Pakistan constitution awards unrestricted birthright citizenship. Nobody has declared Afghan refugees enemy alien either. You are on shaky ground. Read this article

They are free to apply then and find out who is on shaky grounds. Especially since you have so much faith in couple of judges and their judgment. No body is stopping them from approaching the judicial branch.

Denaturalization does not apply to those awarded birthright citizenship. Its only for those who naturalize to a country and could be de-naturalized only if they possess another country's citizenship. This is done to prevent stateless people. The children of refugees do not face the restrictions you are claiming.

They haven't been granted citizenship so the point is moot. But since they are criminals (illegals) and can be easily declared enemy aliens, they won't get a chance at citizenship anyway.

You have been watching too many right wing podcasts and have obviously never been abroad. All immigrant communities have bad actors, but Pakistanis or Indians abroad form successful communities that are able to integrate into the new society while retaining their culture. The same goes for the Turks in Germany, most of them are peaceful and productive members of society. These immigrant communities would not exist in such numbers if the West had never colonized their lands in the first place.

Irrelevant points. The fact remains that mass unchecked migration is destroying the West, especially it's sense of self. And changing demographics. It's not that I care but white supremacists are factually right. Mass migrants commit more crimes per Capita. Do not integrate. Form enclaves. No sugarcoating will change what's coming.

Fencing never slowed down anyone as it does not cover the entire border, which is mountainous. The evidence is the continuing unrestricted flow of migrants, militants, weapons, dollars and smuggled goods. Even livestock continues to be smuggled! If the fence was effective, it would have reduced smuggling which is a main source of corruption in the Pakistani state

Every sentence is wrong.

You can deport people to a war torn country run by fundamentalist regime that crushes their rights, they will just come right back , as has happened many many times. Only a peaceful Afghanistan that is improving will attract refugees back to it. Pakistani policymakers have been following opposite policy and stroking the fire in Afghanistan for last 50 years, that means there are going to be refugees in Afghanistan's neighbors

In pashto we say "aatkaluna". Excuses. Afghanistan is more peaceful than ever before. The afghans didn't flee because they were denied some freedoms but because of Kabul's carper bombings. Afghans are more fundamentalist than Taliban, especially Kandahar axis. If end of war doesn't attract them (pull factor) then Pakistan must make itself a living hell for the afghans as a push factor and that starts with non stop deportations for years of need be. They can got to central Asia or beloved India if Gran afghanistan is not Gran.

Point fingers at the corrupt system in Pakistan that awards documents to anyone with cash, if you have the cajones to do so

Just because you haven't seen those kind of my comments doesn't mean I haven't. But that doesn't change that deporting afghans is the first right thing the Pakistani state has done in a long while.

Only a peaceful Afghanistan which is trading with Pakistan is the solution, the option of war has been utilized for last 50 years by dumb faujis is another one of their giant failures.

Again, every sentence is wrong. Since 1949 when afghanistan declared war upon pakistan, Pakistan has only replied with appeasement. It still does. 8 decades of appeasement by faujis was a giant failure. When Pakistan returns the favour a mimicks afghan policy of total war, then you can claim a police of war. When pakistan says afghanistan isn't a country, supports it's destruction through separatists. Then. Until then, it's all appeasement.

 

[Asfandyar Bhittani]

It is the society and government's responsibility to provide a conducive environment

I wholeheartedly agree. Afghanistan must take responsibility of 20% of it's citizens that it has off-loaded onto Pakistan and iran

We also already have documentation of who was born here

We don't.

were never really given a chance to assimilate into the Pakistani society or economy.

As per the the understanding that refuge was temporary. So they aren't entrenched and can easily repatriate.

Now that they are one of us, by law

Go get them citizenship from courts. Let's see that law you all speak of.

Given what Pakistanis have done to Pakistan, it would be wise now to open up to foreign ideas.

Pakistan is as it is because of Pakistanis who love copy pasting foreign ideas. They even copy pasted the British Parliamentarian system lolz.

 

[Asfandyar Bhittani]

The Afghan refugees are in Pakistan because of 50 years of war, a war that Pakistani state participated in whole heartedly

Why did they flee to pakistan and not to USSR? Since "participating" is you criteria for refugee fleeing to that country then shouldn't afghans have fled to USSR in far greater numbers than to Iran or Pakistan? Or because afghan refugees were displaced not because of Pakistan joing the war in small capacity later than how Kabul and it's Soviet masters carpet bbed rural Afghanistan to depopulate their worst onto Pakistan and Iran?

 

[Rational Philosopher]

Incorrect. The entire basis of a legal system is derived from the basic moral principle of providing protection to the citizens against injustice. Whenever any law goes against moral principles, it is, as should be, opposed legally and changed. It is supposed to provide protection against the opinions of the majority. Otherwise, ill-educated societies such as Pakistan can impose whatever fits their ill-educated understanding. Plenty of examples of that in the Pakistani legal system as well.



And those laws were and will continue to be revoked and remembered as such, in any sensible society, after being deemed immoral.

Laws are still decided based on popular consensus in view of public & national interests. You're just ranting now. They do not follow a moral handbook, because one does not exist, as it is a subjective construct.

Whether they were later revoked or not, the fact they existed dismantles your entire narrative, clearly the law had other priorities in mind instead of subjective moralism that's why they came to pass, and countless still existing.

 

[Watandar]

Why did they flee to pakistan and not to USSR? Since "participating" is you criteria for refugee fleeing to that country then shouldn't afghans have fled to USSR in far greater numbers than to Iran or Pakistan? Or because afghan refugees were displaced not because of Pakistan joing the war in small capacity later than how Kabul and it's Soviet masters carpet bbed rural Afghanistan to depopulate their worst onto Pakistan and Iran?

I suggest you check a map, fleeing on foot to Iran and Pakistan is more feasible that fleeing on foot to far away Moscow. Pakistan didn't join the Afghan war in any small capacity, Operation Cyclone was the biggest covert effort in CIA history and meant big bucks for Zia ul Haq regime.

 

[Watandar]

They are free to apply then and find out who is on shaky grounds. Especially since you have so much faith in couple of judges and their judgment. No body is stopping them from approaching the judicial branch.

Judges are going to follow Constitution and law, not someone rambling in public or online.

They haven't been granted citizenship so the point is moot. But since they are criminals (illegals) and can be easily declared enemy aliens, they won't get a chance at citizenship anyway.

Afghans are recognized refugees according to Pakistan and the UN and their children are citizens according to Constitution and the 1951 nationality law. Your fantasies about declaring them enemy aliens are irrelevant.

Irrelevant points. The fact remains that mass unchecked migration is destroying the West, especially it's sense of self. And changing demographics. It's not that I care but white supremacists are factually right. Mass migrants commit more crimes per Capita. Do not integrate. Form enclaves. No sugarcoating will change what's coming.

Your description of immigrants to West are incorrect and the result of you consuming right wing propaganda that is designed for simpletons. The West has benefitted enormously from immigrant labor but refuses to give credit. It does grant citizenships though unlike the selfish and insecure GCC.

Every sentence is wrong.

In pashto we say "aatkaluna". Excuses. Afghanistan is more peaceful than ever before. The afghans didn't flee because they were denied some freedoms but because of Kabul's carper bombings. Afghans are more fundamentalist than Taliban, especially Kandahar axis. If end of war doesn't attract them (pull factor) then Pakistan must make itself a living hell for the afghans as a push factor and that starts with non stop deportations for years of need be. They can got to central Asia or beloved India if Gran afghanistan is not Gran.

Afghans fled because of 50 years of war , something that Pakistan participated in whole heartedly. You must be only person in the world to describe Afghanistan as "peaceful" , everyone else would describe it as a destroyed land that is still in conflict. Refugees don't go back to conflict and your fantasies about years of deportations is just that, a fantasy.

Just because you haven't seen those kind of my comments doesn't mean I haven't. But that doesn't change that deporting afghans is the first right thing the Pakistani state has done in a long while.

Again, every sentence is wrong. Since 1949 when afghanistan declared war upon pakistan, Pakistan has only replied with appeasement. It still does. 8 decades of appeasement by faujis was a giant failure. When Pakistan returns the favour a mimicks afghan policy of total war, then you can claim a police of war. When pakistan says afghanistan isn't a country, supports it's destruction through separatists. Then. Until then, it's all appeasement.

Wrong. Pakistan replied to border skirmishes by Daud Khan govt in 1950 and 1960s by supporting total war in Afghanistan post 1970s. An incredibly short sighted and dumb policy that resulted in bombs, refugees, militants, guns, drugs and death in Pakistan, that continues to this day. Your claims of "appeasement" are based on ignorance and probably nonsensical podcasts you seem to be consuming. When there is peace in Afghanistan, only then will be peace in Pakistan and vice versa.

 

[Asfandyar Bhittani]

I suggest you check a map, fleeing on foot to Iran and Pakistan is more feasible that fleeing on foot to far away Moscow.

I suggest You check a map, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, all part of USSR are right next to Afghanistan. Crossing over there through peaceful border and river was far easier than over the mountains in contested battlespace. They didn't because it was the soviets they were fleeing not Pakistan or Iran. Who were dumb enough to let them in.

Pakistan didn't join the Afghan war in any small capacity, Operation Cyclone was the biggest covert effort in CIA history and meant big bucks for Zia ul Haq regime.

I was speaking relatively in context of Soviet union. Pakistan's role in Afghanistan was negligible compared to that of Soviet union that was on the ground in various composition since atleast 60s.

And if yet, afghans didn't flock to central Asia but Pakistan an iran because we're weren't displacing them.

So blaming Pakistan for the displacement of these people just tells me how far gone you are in propaganda sphere.

 

[krash]

I wholeheartedly agree. Afghanistan must take responsibility of 20% of it's citizens that it has off-loaded onto Pakistan and iran

We don't.

As per the the understanding that refuge was temporary. So they aren't entrenched and can easily repatriate.

Go get them citizenship from courts. Let's see that law you all speak of.

Don't really have time for rhetoric. If you have nothing more then best we leave it be.

Pakistan is as it is because of Pakistanis who love copy pasting foreign ideas. They even copy pasted the British Parliamentarian system lolz.

As opposed to the great indigenous Pakistani ideas? Go ahead, tell us what system of governance should Pakistan have adopted. I am all ears.

There are no foreign ideas, the entire human civilization is built on collective knowledge and ideas.

Laws are still decided based on popular consensus in view of public & national interests. You're just ranting now. They do not follow a moral handbook, because one does not exist, as it is a subjective construct.

Yes, in ill-educated societies such as Pakistan and Afghanistan. Clearly, denying DNA evidence in rape cases and women their education serves great public and national interests. Like I said, I don't believe you are a valuable participant in this discussion.

Whether they were later revoked or not, the fact they existed dismantles your entire narrative, clearly the law had other priorities in mind instead of subjective moralism that's why they came to pass, and countless still existing.

As implied above, those laws were in effect until they were deemed immoral and campaigned against.....getting a little tired of the deliberate lack of basic reasoning skills here. You can keep on with the ad hominem, though. Don't seem to have much else to offer.

 

[Watandar]

I suggest You check a map, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, all part of USSR are right next to Afghanistan. Crossing over there through peaceful border and river was far easier than over the mountains in contested battlespace. They didn't because it was the soviets they were fleeing not Pakistan or Iran. Who were dumb enough to let them in.

I was speaking relatively in context of Soviet union. Pakistan's role in Afghanistan was negligible compared to that of Soviet union that was on the ground in various composition since atleast 60s.

And if yet, afghans didn't flock to central Asia but Pakistan an iran because we're weren't displacing them.

So blaming Pakistan for the displacement of these people just tells me how far gone you are in propaganda sphere.

Afghan refugees are found all over the world, including in the former Soviet republics. Its what happens to a country that has war for 50 years. If you learn about established routes, ethnicity, geography and closed borders, you might realize why Iran and Pakistan, the neighboring countries of Afghanistan have the highest number of refugees. Its not logical to think more Afghan refugees would be found in Moscow or Dushanbe or Dubai rather than border regions of Pakistan and Iran.

Operation Cyclone was the largest CIA covert ops campaign in history and Pakistan was the principal agent. Its how Zia ul Haq and Akhtar Abdur Rahman families and everyone else in the regime got rich. Why don't you learn about Op Cyclone ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

The Soviets departed in 1989, yet war continued in Afghanistan for 30+ years. Are you aware of the principal actors post 1989 or I have to explain that to you as well ?

"Pakistan role in Afghanistan was negligible" ....sheer ignorance.

 

[Asfandyar Bhittani]

Don't really have time for rhetoric. If you have nothing more then best we leave it be.

I accept your surrender

 

[Asfandyar Bhittani]

Afghan refugees are found all over the world, including in the former Soviet republics. Its what happens to a country that has war for 50 years. If you learn about established routes, ethnicity, geography and closed borders, you might realize why Iran and Pakistan, the neighboring countries of Afghanistan have the highest number of refugees. Its not logical to think more Afghan refugees would be found in Moscow or Dushanbe or Dubai rather than border regions of Pakistan and Iran.

Operation Cyclone was the largest CIA covert ops campaign in history and Pakistan was the principal agent. Its how Zia ul Haq and Akhtar Abdur Rahman families and everyone else in the regime got rich. Why don't you learn about Op Cyclone ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

The Soviets departed in 1989, yet war continued in Afghanistan for 30+ years. Are you aware of the principal actors post 1989 or I have to explain that to you as well ?

"Pakistan role in Afghanistan was negligible" ....sheer ignorance.

Few thousands in USSR their beloved liberator vs almsot 10 million in and out over 50 years in Pakistan sucking them dry.

You can't bullshit you way out of the fact it was Afghanistan that displaced afghans in Soviet order. No Pakistan. Not CIA. Not Iran. By the time allies intervened to save afghans from total genocide, Kabul had already killed 25-30 thousands in pul e charkhi prison alone. Killed and wounded tens of thousands when it's forces in Herat rose up. These including Countless other warcrimes that happened BEFORE Op cyclone, was the cause of displacement, not the efforts of allies to stop the genocidal afghan soviet war machine creating the refugees.

To suggest otherwise is re writing history.