TED: There are no scraps of men

[Ghundal]

The Taliban did not formally exist in the resistance against the Soviets. The US and Pakistan support for that resistance in no way denies the basis of the resistance which was to end the Soviet occupation which Afghans did not accept.

The unwanted ideology was communism . This is a cold fact. No one in Afghanistan tolerated it or the occupation.

The foreign agents were the Communists.

Afghans have never and will never tolerate occupation of their land. Afghans will never tolerate secular ideologies. Sharia has been a part of Afghan culture and ALWAYS will be. All Muslims in the world want Sharia

It makes no difference whether Pakistan, China or some aliens from Mars agree or not.

Pakistan supports the US war and drone attacks. Why are you not talking about this?

[khushal]

@ Khushaal
Your post has a lot of wisdom hidden in it. I agree that in case of states it is always the national interest which rules not any ideology or delusion. You see this was ultimately realized by Stalin when he presented a national version of socialism to USSR. A state should always have an intrinsic strength to stand upon her feet and should not look onto others for her survival, functioning or working.

Actually The Nat-Zi introduced the national version of Socialism in Germany. Stalin was a fan of the international version of socialism which was introduced by Marx. Both versions failed.

Applying this concept on today’s world, it will be foolish for any muslim country to think that other muslim countries are there to run the state for them or to help them. The ineffective status of OIC and the delusional concept of Ummat Muslima are useless in political sense.

The khalifa lasted for over a thousand years and the british Empire(based on international capitalism) has dominated the world for the past 500+ years. Nationalism does not work. The planet is a global village and you must embrace it.

A simple example is that Saudi wants to use your land [Afghanistan] for their ideological indoctrination and also want to fight their wars against Shias or others calling you brother but when you go there for Hajj you need visa and all other pre requisites which any foreigner non Muslim would need. In that case they forget that you are Muslim brother and neither needs visa or any other restriction to get into an Islamic country. Infact some western countries like US and UK don’t need visa and they can just walk in while you have to go through a lot of humiliation of the typical rude Bedouin mentality in case you want to perform an Islamic obligation like pilgrimage.

The only reason that the Saudi had oportunity to use Afghanistan for their indoctrination is because the Soviets invaded. If the Soviets had not invaded, those issues would have been handled by the afghans domistically(wheather it would have been islamists, communists, nationalists). the main thing is that it would have been an AFGHAN solution, not some foreign one ie paki, saudi, soviet, or american.

[pir_Rokhan]

Afghans have never and will never tolerate occupation of their land.

I wish the Afghans realise this fact in case of Pakistan too as Pakistan occupied Afghanistan using her proxy called Taliban in last decade and are going to occupy it again in case taliban come into power.

[pir_Rokhan]

@khushal

I meant "Socialism in one Country" when I referred to Stalin emphasizing that he was interested in Russia more than a universal or global support for or export of revolution which means he realised the fact that if your own house is not in order and strong internally thinking about the rest of the world is a utopian idea.

The khilafa concept is just a nostalgic romanticism for an over-obsessed- with-religion nation like Afghans or even Pakistanis unfortunately but even if I give a regard to your feelings for khilafa , you need to first implement that khilafa [whatever you mean by it] in your country and then in other countries ,if it is appealing them. Now I even doubt whether you have a socio-politico-economic system which meets the challenges of the contemporary age even in theoretical form to be implemented as a system of statecraft for Afghanistan, not considering the hurdles and impediments in its practical implementation.

My humble opinion is that instead of bragging about the political achievements of Arabs let us focus on striving for a democratic, progressive, tolerant and modern [in terms of science and technology] Afghanistan to earn respect in the comity of nations. Living in past will make us idealistic and utopian. You ask an Arab who conquered Spain or who was Abdur Raman ad dakhil and the first thing he will utter is that he was also an Arab and if you want to share their glory by being Muslim he will tell you where are you coming from.

The only reason which you have mentioned in case of SAUDIS using Afghanistan for indoctrination is flawed. You can see their investment in propagating their version of Islam in a lot of countries around the world whether they are invaded or not.

[Ghundal]

I wish the Afghans realise this fact in case of Pakistan too as Pakistan occupied Afghanistan using her proxy called Taliban in last decade and are going to occupy it again in case taliban come into power.

That is disproved by Dr. Pape's research (university of Chicago) , Dr. Schuer, and MK Bhadrakumar. For the last decade, Pakistan has been supporting the US war. Without Pakistan support, the US war and the Karzai regime are not possible. Hamid Karzai and the rest of his administration were ferreted into Afghanistan on American aircraft directly from Islamabad.

What you consider Pakistan " support" for the Taliban is their inability and reluctance to enforce the Durrand line to prevent FATA from being used as a base of operations for the Afghan insurgency. To degrees, Pakistan as well some Gulf states support the Taliban for their own reasons, but then in any world conflict, there are always diverging and converging interests. Karzai has been backed by an alliance of over a 100 well armed nations with the most superior technology and weapons. The Karzai regime is an obvious proxy/puppet. ?

At the request of the US, Pakistan did in fact attempt to enforce rule over parts of Swat and FATA. This resulted in a backlash that created instability in Pakistan and bloodshed. as a consequence, TTP formed too.

Due to Pakistan support for the US war, over 40000 have died within Pakistan.

Pakistan obviously has interests in seeing that the occupation of Afghanistan is over. Iran, China, and Russia do too for different reasons.

The Taliban do not recognize the Durrand line.

I think what you are trying to say is that you want secularism and wish to impose this unwanted ideology upon Afghan people. Majority of Afghans want Sharia.

This is the problem for secularism.

There probably will never be a future for secularism in Afghanistan mostly due to the fault of seculars cheer leading foreign war continuously?


Where is the secular Afghan/Pashtun army? Where is the secular Pashtun version of Bugti?

Where us the secular Afghan warrior?

It does not exist because they lack principle and ethics to fight for their own ideals.

If you study the history of all nations in the world, destiny always is with those who stand for their own ideals and vision for their homeland. China (1911 revolution), French Revolution, Vietnamese victory, Iranian Revolution and so on. Proxy talk- no one in the world is anyone's proxy

[khushal]

@khushal

I meant "Socialism in one Country" when I referred to Stalin emphasizing that he was interested in Russia more than a universal or global support for or export of revolution which means he realised the fact that if your own house is not in order and strong internally thinking about the rest of the world is a utopian idea.

Stalin was an internationalist. he was not even russian, but he knew to put Socialism on the interantional scale he had to be apart of a big nation like russia who had already created a vast union of multiethnic makeup. If he was a nationalist, he would have fought the russians for the freedom of georgia.

But it sounds like you are more talking about abdul wahab who preached that it is necessay to get his own house in order first before setting out to get other homse in order.

The khilafa concept is just a nostalgic romanticism for an over-obsessed- with-religion nation like Afghans or even Pakistanis unfortunately but even if I give a regard to your feelings for khilafa , you need to first implement that khilafa [whatever you mean by it] in your country and then in other countries ,if it is appealing them. Now I even doubt whether you have a socio-politico-economic system which meets the challenges of the contemporary age even in theoretical form to be implemented as a system of statecraft for Afghanistan, not considering the hurdles and impediments in its practical implementation.

you dont know my feeling about khalifa because I have never discussed it. Again I say the Khalifa lasted for a 1000+ years, nothing you said refutes that fact. I also mentioned the british who are not nationalist but international capitalists, my intention was to let you know that nationalism does not work.

My humble opinion is that instead of bragging about the political achievements of Arabs let us focus on striving for a democratic, progressive, tolerant and modern [in terms of science and technology] Afghanistan to earn respect in the comity of nations. Living in past will make us idealistic and utopian. You ask an Arab who conquered Spain or who was Abdur Raman ad dakhil and the first thing he will utter is that he was also an Arab and if you want to share their glory by being Muslim he will tell you where are you coming from.

I have no idea why you think the arabs accomplished much but they accomplished close to nothing. The people who conquered spain were not arabs.

The only reason which you have mentioned in case of SAUDIS using Afghanistan for indoctrination is flawed. You can see their investment in propagating their version of Islam in a lot of countries around the world whether they are invaded or not.

They are also indoctrinating their version of Islam in America and all the other western countries but have they destroyed america or any western country or any country for that matter. I say again, dont blame the opportunists like the saudis and pakis, blame the invasion by foreign troops. what have these invasions accomplished except embarresment for themselves and the destruction of afghanstan.

Foregn troops is like the HIV virus and the pakis and saudi opportunists are like the flu like viruses that kill the body. Who do the doctors blame for the death of the victim. they blame the HIV virus not the flu that actually kills the patient. The patient can take care of the flu on its own if the HIV virus never existed in it.

[pir_Rokhan]

That is an unproven fantasy that is disproved by Dr. Pape's research (university of Chicago) , Dr. Schuer, and MK Bhadrakumar.

These guys won’t know a bit of reality what we know as theirs is an academic inference based on some remote statistical data and ours is a practical experience and firsthand knowledge. Mark my words...Firsthand knowledge. Will give you proof at appropriate time.

P.S: This topic has been discussed on these pages times and again. Please refer to those arguments and proofs on the pages of PF. I would rather turn to the more interesting points you have mentioned in this post of yours.

For the last decade, Pakistan has been supporting the US war. Without Pakistan support, the US war and the Karzai regime are not possible. Hamid Karzai and the rest of his administration were ferreted into Afghanistan on American aircraft directly from Islamabad.

I agree with that but this is half truth. The rest of the truth is that ISI adopted the policy of running with the hounds and hunting with the hares and double crossed both the ISAF and Americans to achieve their goal of destroying Afghanistan at the Taliban and milking money from the US.

What you consider Pakistan "support" for the Taliban is their inability and reluctance to enforce the Durand line to prevent FATA from being used as a base of operations for the Afghan insurgency.

The Taliban do not recognize the Durand line.

You see I can have a soft corner for Afghan Taliban if you give me some credible evidence of the quoted lines. I would love to hear that Afghan Taliban do not accept Durand line.

At the request of the US, Pakistan did in fact attempt to enforce rule over parts of Swat and FATA. This resulted in a backlash that created instability in Pakistan and bloodshed.
Pakistan's support for the US war is the reason that TTP formed as reaction. What is termed "militancy" is in fact a response to outside interference.

I can agree on this too if there is some credible evidence for what you are saying. Moreover you will have to prove that TTP has not been involved in the destruction of Pakhtunkhwa and is against Pakistan [that is, against Pakistani establishment].

You see if TTP were against Pakistan then why they have been targeting only Pakhtuns who are already the victims of Pakistan’s biased policies as well as that of US drone attacks [am referring to the case when the drones miss foreign terrorists from other countries who have hijacked FATA and are killing innocent Pakhtuns in collateral damage].

Due to Pakistan support for the US war, over 40000 have died within Pakistan. Pakistan obviously has interests in seeing that the occupation of Afghanistan is over. Iran, China, and Russia do too for different reasons.

This obvious interest of Pakistan or others is unjustified as they want to run Afghanistan according to their wishes hence not accepting her sovereign status which is not acceptable. They don’t hate US presence because it is preventing them to install puppets in the in the higher echelons of power corridors in Kabul. While ISAF atleast is taking care of Afghan security till the ANA is capable of it and Afghanistan has sufficient funds to afford all this. You should not forget that Afghanistan has been through three decades of war and her economy has collapsed and it takes time for the economies of states to get stable as basic principle of political economy.

The real opinion of yours is that you want secularism and wish to impose this unwanted ideology upon Afghan people. Majority of Afghans want Sharia. This is the problem for secularism. There will never be a future for secularism in Afghanistan mostly due to the fault of seculars cheer leading foreign war continuously? Where is the secular Afghan/Pashtun army? Where us your Bugti? Where us the secular Afghan warrior? It does not exist because they lack principle and ethics to fight for their own ideals.

Yara I told you about this in my last post. Let me re iterate that I do not have any objection over any system which is implemented in Afghanistan as long as it assures a bright and progressive future for the Afghans and resolves the monstrous issue of the running the business of the state. I don’t want to under estimate the Islamists but let them come with a manifesto and win popular mandate and face the challenge of running a state like Afghanistan. I personally doubt that our Islamist Afghans even have any clue of the problems forget about the solutions but I still am ready to give them benefit of doubt as long as they don’t impose their views or use force and violence against Afghans to come into power.

If you study the history of all nations in the world, destiny always is with those who stand for their own ideals and vision for their homeland. China (1911 revolution), French Revolution, Vietnamese victory, Iranian Revolution and so on.

The result of the struggle in China was their version of Socialism. The result of French revolution was overthrowing monarchy and bringing democracy. Vietnamese’s struggle was characterized by Nationalism too. That’s what I am suggesting.

Proxy talk- no one in the world is anyone's proxy

It is interesting to note that you started with this claim and are also ending it with the same. This claim goes in favor of Pakistani establishment. No offence but this makes me skeptic about your intentions. I would like to agree to disagree on this till you give some convincing proof which could imply that Afghan Taliban have a better plan or manifesto for the future of Afghanistan [aka a solution to the current issues faced by Afghan nation] and that they don’t recognize Durand line.

[Ghundal]

It is also important to know that Pakistan imprisoned and handed over several Taliban officials. Mullah Fazl, Mullah Khairkhwa, are some of them. These are in fact the prisoners which have been released in Qatar as a confidence building measure for talks to end the war. The Taliban specifically wanted these former prisoners to be released in Qatar, not Pakistan. Pakistan also violated diplomatic rules (UN) and international law when they handed Mullah Zaeef to US custody. You can read up on that in Zaeef's autobiography

[Ghundal]

Pir,

Occupation has never been tolerated and never will be tolerated in Afghanistsn.

Secularism us unwanted in Afghanistan and the entire region.

Occupation is unwanted too. Put that on a memo for yourself.

This Italian man you falsely proclaimed to be an infidel with pride, is against the US occupation and war.

He was living in Afghanistan even during Taliban rule, and was welcome there.


Is Alberto a Pakistani agent because he is anti war? Is Dr. Miraki a Pakistani agent because he is ANTI WAR?

How about Malalai ? Is she a Pakistani agent? Or is she Taliban because she is ANTI WAR? Is the whole Pashtun population of Southern and Eastern Afghanistan Pakistani agents because they are ANTI WAR?

Since when did anti-war equal Pakistan?

[pir_Rokhan]

Stalin was an internationalist. he was not even russian, but he knew to put Socialism on the interantional scale he had to be apart of a big nation like russia who had already created a vast union of multiethnic makeup. If he was a nationalist, he would have fought the russians for the freedom of georgia.

Before you go far and get deep into the terms to create another confusion , let me remind you the argument that I wanted to say that Afghan nation needs to stand on her feet and you cannot think of any global system that is KHILAFA [which you mysteriously call KHALIFA] if your own country is weak and nowhere in the international community. I am not bothered about Stalin or Lenin but about the oint of being nationally strong to claim any international postion.

you dont know my feeling about khalifa because I have never discussed it. Again I say the Khalifa lasted for a 1000+ years, nothing you said refutes that fact.

Khdaya paka...I meant your feelings about the system which you call khalifa and which is infact Khilafa.

The "khalifa" which you say lsted for a 1000 years doesnt matter. What matters is what it gave to the world. I dont want to go into history but except the era till first ten years of Usman which turns out to be not more than 25 years the rest of the "khalifa" was full of fights and fueds and hunger and thirst for power. There was a small break in the era of Umar bin Abdul Aziz and the rest was Ummayad vs Abasyads then Fatimeds etc. Even Jang Jamal was between Ali and Ayesha.

Thats what is important. When religion tries to get involved into state affairs it creates problems. Hence when Europe segregated state and clergy and man made progress with accelerated pace while Muslims were still engrosse din their internal fueds.

I also mentioned the british who are not nationalist but international capitalists, my intention was to let you know that nationalism does not work.

If there is no industrialisation then neither nationalism nor democracy works so you are partially true.

I have no idea why you think the arabs accomplished much but they accomplished close to nothing. The people who conquered spain were not arabs.

Again you missed the argument. I meant that most of what the muslims are proud of has been Arab conquests or contributions and this is what Saudis think contrary to delusion of grandeur of the rest of the so called muslim world. As an example I was referring to Abd al-Rahman ibn Mu'awiya ibn Hisham ibn Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan (731-788) the founder of the Umayyad Emirate of Córdoba (755).

They are also indoctrinating their version of Islam in America and all the other western countries but have they destroyed america or any western country or any country for that matter. I say again, dont blame the opportunists like the saudis and pakis, blame the invasion by foreign troops. what have these invasions accomplished except embarresment for themselves and the destruction of afghanstan. Foregn troops is like the HIV virus and the pakis and saudi opportunists are like the flu like viruses that kill the body. Who do the doctors blame for the death of the victim. they blame the HIV virus not the flu that actually kills the patient. The patient can take care of the flu on its own if the HIV virus never existed in it.

I do not appprove of imperialism or intervention or invasion as this has not been the history of Pashtuns. So there is no disagrement on this point.

My point was that why the body politic of Afghans has been so weak that its either we fall prey to the invasion, indoctrination or wars or intervention of others and become scapegaots or guinnea pigs? Why are we not aware of our interest as a nation? Why have we not been able to stablise our land or state? Why have we not been able to contribute our part to the collective scientific knowledge of human race? In my opinion the answer to all these questions is lack of political consciousness about our national interests.

The link which I have posted iat the start of the thread is a reflection of what I want to say.

[pir_Rokhan]

Pir,

Occupation has never been tolerated and never will be tolerated in Afghanistsn.

Secularism us unwanted in Afghanistan and the entire region.

Occupation is unwanted too. Put that on a memo for yourself.

This Italian man you falsely proclaimed to be an infidel with pride, is against the US occupation and war.

He was living in Afghanistan even during Taliban rule, and was welcome there.

Next time, you try to make a case for your PRO WAR views, read up on someone before you post.

You just made a fool if yourself,

Is Alberto a Pakistani agent because he is anti war? Is Dr. Miraki a Pakistani agent because he is ANTI WAR?

How about Malalai ? Is she a Pakistani agent? Or is she Taliban because she is ANTI WAR? Is the whole Pashtun population of Southern and Eastern Afghanistan Pakistani agents because they are ANTI WAR?

Since when did anti-war equal Pakistan?

Yar te da bal post hum waya no bia jawab lika kana. Laka da rapid shoro she.

I am anti-war , anti-imperialism and anti intervention and that is why I want other countries to respect the sovereignty of Afghanistan and should not use Afghanistan as a chess ground for their agendas.

It was the interventionist policy of Islamabad which compeled US to bomb Afghanistan because they convinced Taliban to retain OBL.

I disagree on your claim about secularism as that just means a tolerant system which is needed for Afghanistan but in the long run once Afghan society evolves to an industrial society from a tribal one.

I know you would again not read this as you dint read the earlier posts.

[khushal]

Before you go far and get deep into the terms to create another confusion , let me remind you the argument that I wanted to say that Afghan nation needs to stand on her feet and you cannot think of any global system that is KHILAFA [which you mysteriously call KHALIFA] if your own country is weak and nowhere in the international community. I am not bothered about Stalin or Lenin but about the oint of being nationally strong to claim any international postion.

hahahaha, your back peddling. the only thing you can do is correct my spelling. your changing the argument. you orginaly said that stalin introduced national socialism.

If you think Afghanistan can turn into a modern Soviet union, keep dreaming. Afghanitan can never survive on its own. it has no resources and its landlocked. Afghanistan has to belong to something that is bigger than afghanistan.

Khdaya paka...I meant your feelings about the system which you call khalifa and which is infact Khilafa.

The "khalifa" which you say lsted for a 1000 years doesnt matter. What matters is what it gave to the world. I dont want to go into history but except the era till first ten years of Usman which turns out to be not more than 25 years the rest of the "khalifa" was full of fights and fueds and hunger and thirst for power. There was a small break in the era of Umar bin Abdul Aziz and the rest was Ummayad vs Abasyads then Fatimeds etc. Even Jang Jamal was between Ali and Ayesha.

Thats what is important. When religion tries to get involved into state affairs it creates problems. Hence when Europe segregated state and clergy and man made progress with accelerated pace while Muslims were still engrosse din their internal fueds.

really, you think religion is the source of conflict. conflict is human nature. If Amreica pulls its troops out of europe, it would take less than 20 yrs before europe fall back into its cycle of war. It does not matter if your secular or a theologian. The seculars have been involved in wars that have killed way more people than the theologians.

Empires rise and fall, its a cycle. The ottomans time was up, it had risen, reached its peak and it declined, it had nothing to do with religion, and so did the British Empire, the Soviet empire and it will happen to the American Empire. This cycle is inevitable.
The Roman Empire lasted about 500 yrs, The Khalifa lasted for 1000+ yrs, the British Empire about 500 yrs, The soviets about 70 yrs. So your telling me the one that lasted 1000 yrs was the worst one because it wasnt secular, than why did they last the longest.

If there is no industrialisation then neither nationalism nor democracy works so you are partially true.

industrialisation leads to globalisation. that is why nationalism does not work.

My point was that why the body politic of Afghans has been so weak that its either we fall prey to the invasion, indoctrination or wars or intervention of others and become scapegaots or guinnea pigs? Why are we not aware of our interest as a nation? Why have we not been able to stablise our land or state? Why have we not been able to contribute our part to the collective scientific knowledge of human race? In my opinion the answer to all these questions is lack of political consciousness about our national interests.

The link which I have posted iat the start of the thread is a reflection of what I want to say.

I beleive it is because we are still a tribal society. Afghanistan has not been a real nation in the modern sense. the tribes are autonous and dont really pledge alliegence to the state in a way most people in modern states do. When foreign armies come, they come with the intention to create a functioning central government that can extend its authority to the isolated tribes who really dont want any authority imposed on them. You can see this when we say " I am going to watan," we never say I am going to Afghanistan. Afghan in PAkistan say "kuz tsum, pus tsem, bar tsem, lar tsem" we never say I am going to Pakistan or Ia m going to Afghanistan. WE dont have a national conscience.

[khushal]

Afghan Taliban have a better plan or manifesto for the future of Afghanistan [aka a solution to the current issues faced by Afghan nation] and that they don’t recognize Durand line.

While I am no fan of the TAliban because they are not progressive enough but I do beleive that this issues should be left to afghans themselves. Foreign armies has not really solved anything. the taliban are part of the afghan society and afghans have to live with them like or not.

as far as the taliban not recognizing the durand line or dropping its claim to KP. ghundal is right on that one.
http://books.google.com/books?id=dld...20line&f=false

[faye]

so, conflict is human nature? gee, i know heaps of people who are anti war, including myself.
is this what the qu'ran teaches you khushal? to embrace conflict and keep doing it or is this the conclusion of the 'theory of evolutionists'?

[khushal]

so, conflict is human nature? gee, i know heaps of people who are anti war, including myself.
is this what the qu'ran teaches you khushal? to embrace conflict and keep doing it or is this the conclusion of the 'theory of evolutionists'?

Your not anti anything. your ancestors butchered the aborigines. the only reason that your a pot smking hippie handing out flowers is because you have lived in an environment where it has been easy to survive. The society you live in is doing the butchering and the pillaging so you dont have to.
humans are impulsevely violent. the quaran teaches us to control our impulse.