Barakzai: Where you stand

[kakargirl]

m16 we only marry with in our own tribe

[Catya Sher]

What in the world does THIS mean, Toramana, from one of your first posts:

"...even if Khalqis show the courage to boot Americans out and teach them a good lesson."

Khalqis? - That emasculated group of cringing wannabes, maybe 14 or 15 altogether in number?!

[Toramana]

What in the world does THIS mean, Toramana, from one of your first posts:

"...even if Khalqis show the courage to boot Americans out and teach them a good lesson."

Khalqis? - That emasculated group of cringing wannabes, maybe 14 or 15 altogether in number?!

What do you mean by that? Be explicit.

[khyaal]

Toramana! You know Catya has remained Azmat Hayat's able student.

[Catya Sher]

^ HA HA, very funny!
You guys are envious that I knew this luminary back before he was raised to star status...just teasing.

[Catya Sher]

See, Mr. Mig fighter pilot,
Kakargirl got you there.
YOU couldn't possibly argue with her about the marriage within the tribe only.

I told you she is tough.

[eusuphxai]

BTW, you actually fulfilled your wish.

LOL true!! and dat too without realising it.

[khyaal]

See, Mr. Mig fighter pilot,
Kakargirl got you there.
YOU couldn't possibly argue with her about the marriage within the tribe only.

I told you she is tough.

This is a favourite topic of discussion among punjabis. Apart from this they will ask you, 'have got married'?, if you say yes, they will further enquire you, 'was it an arraged one or a love marriage'?

They can infinitely talk about trivial things. LOL. But you already know all this.

[Catya Sher]

So do you guys, for you all harp on these crazy tangents such as jihadi daughters !

You guys should be happy that someone on our Forum has actually MET the famous Jelaluddin and even an endured Soviet helicopter gunship attack on the battlefield with his leadership group clustered in a cave. As well as been right at the scene of some of his victories over the Communist - yes, Khalqi - and Parchami - puppet forces.

So there!

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I don't know which times are you living in my dear "Afghan" aristocrat. We are not living in the compartmentalized world of some bygone age, insular within. Globalization, modernization, revolutionary changes in media and mode of communication, Internet, letc. have tightly bound everything togethor exposed to changes and sub-ordinate to the dictates of an international order run by states with broader/global influences.

Moreover, it is not some slumbering medieval era world technologically stagnated and rigid to adopt to changes. Societies and states in todays world'go for rapid modernization of their societies in order to quickly develop the required human resource base for a sustainable life-standard. and stable society And they don't do it just on their own. They are aided by other govts, financial institutions, etc....and with that comes compromises, constraints, bargaining positions, etc.




Mr "Afghan" aristocrate, I wonder why did you fail to mention Pakistan/Punjab as one of the interventionaist states whereas pointing to Iran, Arabs, Americans, etc ? And why are you so much sensitive about Pukhtunkhwa as to mention its name again and again in any reference to Pashtuns/Afghanistan? Doesn't this belie something?

Again, sections of a society others sections. You cannot insulate a populace from thoughts and perception originating from within...The proper thing to do is to allow all ideologies to be put before the masses for them to sift and choose from.

Regarding Pakistani interventionalism, absolutely, if that is what the whole point of your animosity to my argument is (which I am attempting glean) I agree wholeheartedly that Pakistan intervenes, and not necessarily with the best of intentions, but rather for the sake of a possibly flawed concept of of strategic depth.

India proved that it was quiet capable of handling Pakistani aerial bombing of Northern India and then converging on Dhaka and seizing East Pakistan without batting an eyelish. The strategy towards placing an army of a different ethnic population into Bengali territory was foolish. It was even more foolish to believe that all the power base coudl concentrate in the Panjab while trying to deny the results of the election that resulted in the loss of Bhutto.

However, because, like Kurish Iraq/Iran/Turkey straddling three countries, the concept of interventionalism, what invites it, and what constitutes it, is so much more complex.

My prior posts show direct invitations by Amanullah Ghazi and Nadir Shah that involved the Wazirs and Mehseds. As an example, Nadir Shah appealed to seizure of the Kabul throne from Bachay Saquo and they responded. You can read those commentaries I wrote.

These tribes however are inextricably tied to what goes on in Afghanistan.

I guess where I can try to find some middle ground for you is to say that General Zia and others, due to their lack of any links to the recognized state of Afghanistan, have less to nearly no valid reason to intervene.

My point is that due to poor strategy on the part of our leaders, we not only failed to acquire what we stupidly gave up, but we also allowed the cementing of strategic depth based on our actions.

I mean come on? Arming hill tribes (particularly the Kharotis that have a land vendetta against the Wazirs) was a stupid strategy. Its like arming the Hotaks to take all of Kandahar. The Abdaliyan would feel perpetually antagonized.

How could you deny that the sequence of events would not follow as such:
A) we arm Kharotis --> B) They make incursions onto Wazir lands and even into Bajaur --> C) The Wazirs and other tribes throw their weight behind the new nation in a jirga because Zahir is arming their primary foe right across the border --> D) You forever seal the deal that you will not regain your land.

With their primary ability to motivate and arm the hill tribes being known, why not seek the following sequence:
A) Arm the hill tribes themselves and raise your standard army B) Make alliances with folks like Faqir e Ipi and make a bold sweeping access of the land with the help of the same tribes that helped you before to regain your throne, not once, but TWICE. C) Ensure they British are already gone when doing A/B (which they were).

To clarify, when I justify cross border interventionalism, I am pointing out that even Bernard Lewis details out quiet effectively the concept of defensive jihad. I simply meant that Amanullah and Nadir Shah had already made sure that the hill tribes were an integral part of the history of their access to the throne.

So what bars a young buck, who decides that the lands in Birmal that belong to the Ahmedzai Wazir traditionally are being occupied by the invader's force (and mind you the recent surveys show that a majority of southern Afghans do not even know 9/11 happened) and nudges him on to join a fighting force that he views as fighting defensive religious war against the occupier??? That is where the complexity of "Paki" interventionalism comes in.

After all, whether you choose to call them misguided or not, these are Tribal FATA youth that are making incursions and conducting operations in the current state of Afghanistan because they view it as their religious obligation to oust the invader from their traditional lands/pashtun lands.

This is where the similarity to Kurdistan comes into play. Would one call a Kurdish Iraqi that crosses over to fight the Turkish government an interventionalist??

In the same vein, Amanullah and Nadir invited their interventionalism previously so who are you, Toramana to tell the Wazirs and Mehsuds that they now must abandon their claims? In fact some of these tribesmen were given Afghan passports by nadir shahs government.

[khyaal]

So do you guys, for you all harp on these crazy tangents such as jihadi daughters !

You guys should be happy that someone on our Forum has actually MET the famous Jelaluddin and even an endured Soviet helicopter gunship attack on the battlefield with his leadership group clustered in a cave. As well as been right at the scene of some of his victories over the Communist - yes, Khalqi - and Parchami - puppet forces.

So there!

Yes I know. Many people meet Satan in their dreams frequently.

[Catya Sher]

^ Speaking here from firsthand experience, of course, right?

P.S.: I have a whole bunch of photos to prove my stories!

[khyaal]

Regarding Pakistani interventionalism, absolutely, if that is what the whole point of your animosity to my argument is (which I am attempting glean) I agree wholeheartedly that Pakistan intervenes, and not necessarily with the best of intentions, but rather for the sake of a possibly flawed concept of of strategic depth.

India proved that it was quiet capable of handling Pakistani aerial bombing of Northern India and then converging on Dhaka and seizing East Pakistan without batting an eyelish. The strategy towards placing an army of a different ethnic population into Bengali territory was foolish. It was even more foolish to believe that all the power base coudl concentrate in the Panjab while trying to deny the results of the election that resulted in the loss of Bhutto.

However, because, like Kurish Iraq/Iran/Turkey straddling three countries, the concept of interventionalism, what invites it, and what constitutes it, is so much more complex.

My prior posts show direct invitations by Amanullah Ghazi and Nadir Shah that involved the Wazirs and Mehseds. As an example, Nadir Shah appealed to seizure of the Kabul throne from Bachay Saquo and they responded. You can read those commentaries I wrote.

These tribes however are inextricably tied to what goes on in Afghanistan.

I guess where I can try to find some middle ground for you is to say that General Zia and others, due to their lack of any links to the recognized state of Afghanistan, have less to nearly no valid reason to intervene.

My point is that due to poor strategy on the part of our leaders, we not only failed to acquire what we stupidly gave up, but we also allowed the cementing of strategic depth based on our actions.

I mean come on? Arming hill tribes (particularly the Kharotis that have a land vendetta against the Wazirs) was a stupid strategy. Its like arming the Hotaks to take all of Kandahar. The Abdaliyan would feel perpetually antagonized.

How could you deny that the sequence of events would not follow as such:
A) we arm Kharotis --> B) They make incursions onto Wazir lands and even into Bajaur --> C) The Wazirs and other tribes throw their weight behind the new nation in a jirga because Zahir is arming their primary foe right across the border --> D) You forever seal the deal that you will not regain your land.

With their primary ability to motivate and arm the hill tribes being known, why not seek the following sequence:
A) Arm the hill tribes themselves and raise your standard army B) Make alliances with folks like Faqir e Ipi and make a bold sweeping access of the land with the help of the same tribes that helped you before to regain your throne, not once, but TWICE. C) Ensure they British are already gone when doing A/B (which they were).

To clarify, when I justify cross border interventionalism, I am pointing out that even Bernard Lewis details out quiet effectively the concept of defensive jihad. I simply meant that Amanullah and Nadir Shah had already made sure that the hill tribes were an integral part of the history of their access to the throne.

So what bars a young buck, who decides that the lands in Birmal that belong to the Ahmedzai Wazir traditionally are being occupied by the invader's force (and mind you the recent surveys show that a majority of southern Afghans do not even know 9/11 happened) and nudges him on to join a fighting force that he views as fighting defensive religious war against the occupier??? That is where the complexity of "Paki" interventionalism comes in.

After all, whether you choose to call them misguided or not, these are Tribal FATA youth that are making incursions and conducting operations in the current state of Afghanistan because they view it as their religious obligation to oust the invader from their traditional lands/pashtun lands.

This is where the similarity to Kurdistan comes into play. Would one call a Kurdish Iraqi that crosses over to fight the Turkish government an interventionalist??

In the same vein, Amanullah and Nadir invited their interventionalism previously so who are you, Toramana to tell the Wazirs and Mehsuds that they now must abandon their claims? In fact some of these tribesmen were given Afghan passports by nadir shahs government.

The same old Paki-Centric stuff. Your are telling all historical events from a typical Punjabi perspective. Why don't you clearly say that Pakistan occupies its Muslim brother's historical land as direct inheretence from the British colonialists. Do you think this land along with Baloch territory was part of indian subcontinent which was gifted to Pakistan during the partition of India? Is it so difficult to comprehend?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Barakzai (if you really are), I would not comment on the aristocratic aura extended over two continents, three countries, and at least two religious communities that you are trying to weave around yourself (probably to inspire trust) because that is not relevant to this discussion. However, I will like to mention that although, I cannot say for sure you are not the one you are pretending to be, I can’t say the opposite with certainty as well. But I do consider people’s ethnic/cultural and political backgrounds important to understanding their positions and motives for their opinion about things over which there is a disagreement. I find you too knowledgeable about Pakistan and too pro-Pakistan that an Afghan can be. Especially(and apart from other things), when you call Sherzaman Taizai as Taizai Saib, that shows a pretty intimate level of acquaintance with that person, that casts doubt on your identity.

There were some Sardars of the Afghan Royal family who were exiled to India in 19th Century where they gained entry into the military of British Raj and during partition moved to Pakistan where some of them having served in ISI and Pakistan army also served on the panel of experts (on Central Asia and Afghanistan) of Area Study Center of which Fida Yunis and Taizai were also members (Area Study Center is a front of Pakistan’s intelligence wing).


Now, I will come to this Hadrat Bilal Habshi as they called it issue. As you would notice, in my post, I had qualified my statement about Hadrat Bilal with the sentence “as for knowledge is concerned”, which is a standard way in research not to give categorical statements about things about which there is little certainty (in research we say, to the best of the author’s knowledge). Anyhow, I am student of Science and would accept without any reluctance if there is credible and sufficient evidence that he was able to marry a respectable Arab woman of Hijaz as his status deserved.


Nevertheless, there is a degree of uncertainty about his marriage. I read in one source (that I cannot recall the name of) that he never married. Another source says, he married a Syrian lady at a very late age probably a couple of years before his death and didn’t have any male issue. It is a fact that during the prophet time, he had some respect as a Muazin. During the reign of Abu Bakar, who was his saviour and to him he was indebted for his freedom, he had sought Khalifa permission to go for jehad but that was not granted. Hadrath Ummar granted him permission with some reluctance. I mean although, he was one of the earliest converters and a companion of the prophet, he didn’t have the status that Meccan or Madinian nobility had.

About the three Khalifa’s dying unnatural death at the hands of dissatisfied mob, that is a fact that needs no comment.


For the Dewan of Hadrath Ummar, you can consult the “History of Arabs” by Philip K. Hitti who bases his work on classical sources of Islamic theology, history, and biography of the prophet. As for the imperial base of Arab economy during the earlier Muslim era, it would suffice to mention that Hadrath Ummar had issued an order to Muslim soldiers not to have any land holding in the conquered lands because he feared, then they would not send spoils of jehad back to Hijaz on which the Arab nobility depended. This is exactly what happened during Ali and Muawiya era who shifted the capitals of their kingdoms to the main basis of economy (Damascuss and Kofa).

I mean it is ridiculous to assume that early Muslims were not fallible to any worldly desire. They were as indicated by the above instances. The utopian attribute that you assign to them and the romantic brotherhood that you are talking about is not humanly possible. Accepting that they were given to human weaknesses would not lower their status…They would still be among great people of history to have given rise to great Arab civilization and religion of Islam but this would make Muslim thought process more rational (which in the end would be good for Muslims).

Once again, you are imposing a view you have of Islamists onto what you believe that goes on in my head.

You never asked any simple questions of me. Instead you made a series of incorrect and ahistorical statements such as: Bilal never got married and Bilal was not allowed to go to jihad and turn out to be wrong or at least unfair in your historical representation. For instance: Khalid Bin Walid was dismissed and relieved of duty by Omar as well and called back from the battle front. This was in the same time and turn. However, it is useless debating with you becase you definitively prove you are prone to generating imprecise and inaccurate information. Debating with you is like debating with a Glenn Beck.

Therefore, we rely on your previously inaccurate statements to say that your words have a low impact factor, your sources are incredulous, and you generally show a low aptitude in history of any sort.

However, anyone who seriously reads early caliphate history will recognize that there were errors of judgement. I cited the Battle of Siffin as an example before. We also understand that Umayyad nepotism, whether the officials were qualified or not, did begin under Uthman. We certainly recognize that the decisions of Abu Musa Al Asharee in negotiating on Ali's behalf were lacking in some parts and the classical authors also state this.

I agree that lionizing that period of history without seriously critiquing fateful decisions is an Islamist practice. There is absolutely nothing wrong with discussing the pitfalls of certain decisions made during that time period, whether they be the possibly premature invasion of Iran or the war of the factions of Hajjaj and bin Zubair made fateful decisions that reverberate into today.

[Toramana]

Regarding Pakistani interventionalism, absolutely, if that is what the whole point of your animosity to my argument is (which I am attempting glean) I agree wholeheartedly that Pakistan intervenes, and not necessarily with the best of intentions, but rather for the sake of a possibly flawed concept of of strategic depth.

India proved that it was quiet capable of handling Pakistani aerial bombing of Northern India and then converging on Dhaka and seizing East Pakistan without batting an eyelish. The strategy towards placing an army of a different ethnic population into Bengali territory was foolish. It was even more foolish to believe that all the power base coudl concentrate in the Panjab while trying to deny the results of the election that resulted in the loss of Bhutto.

However, because, like Kurish Iraq/Iran/Turkey straddling three countries, the concept of interventionalism, what invites it, and what constitutes it, is so much more complex.

My prior posts show direct invitations by Amanullah Ghazi and Nadir Shah that involved the Wazirs and Mehseds. As an example, Nadir Shah appealed to seizure of the Kabul throne from Bachay Saquo and they responded. You can read those commentaries I wrote.

These tribes however are inextricably tied to what goes on in Afghanistan.

I guess where I can try to find some middle ground for you is to say that General Zia and others, due to their lack of any links to the recognized state of Afghanistan, have less to nearly no valid reason to intervene.

My point is that due to poor strategy on the part of our leaders, we not only failed to acquire what we stupidly gave up, but we also allowed the cementing of strategic depth based on our actions.

I mean come on? Arming hill tribes (particularly the Kharotis that have a land vendetta against the Wazirs) was a stupid strategy. Its like arming the Hotaks to take all of Kandahar. The Abdaliyan would feel perpetually antagonized.

How could you deny that the sequence of events would not follow as such:
A) we arm Kharotis --> B) They make incursions onto Wazir lands and even into Bajaur --> C) The Wazirs and other tribes throw their weight behind the new nation in a jirga because Zahir is arming their primary foe right across the border --> D) You forever seal the deal that you will not regain your land.

With their primary ability to motivate and arm the hill tribes being known, why not seek the following sequence:
A) Arm the hill tribes themselves and raise your standard army B) Make alliances with folks like Faqir e Ipi and make a bold sweeping access of the land with the help of the same tribes that helped you before to regain your throne, not once, but TWICE. C) Ensure they British are already gone when doing A/B (which they were).

To clarify, when I justify cross border interventionalism, I am pointing out that even Bernard Lewis details out quiet effectively the concept of defensive jihad. I simply meant that Amanullah and Nadir Shah had already made sure that the hill tribes were an integral part of the history of their access to the throne.

So what bars a young buck, who decides that the lands in Birmal that belong to the Ahmedzai Wazir traditionally are being occupied by the invader's force (and mind you the recent surveys show that a majority of southern Afghans do not even know 9/11 happened) and nudges him on to join a fighting force that he views as fighting defensive religious war against the occupier??? That is where the complexity of "Paki" interventionalism comes in.

After all, whether you choose to call them misguided or not, these are Tribal FATA youth that are making incursions and conducting operations in the current state of Afghanistan because they view it as their religious obligation to oust the invader from their traditional lands/pashtun lands.

This is where the similarity to Kurdistan comes into play. Would one call a Kurdish Iraqi that crosses over to fight the Turkish government an interventionalist??

In the same vein, Amanullah and Nadir invited their interventionalism previously so who are you, Toramana to tell the Wazirs and Mehsuds that they now must abandon their claims? In fact some of these tribesmen were given Afghan passports by nadir shahs government.

And same are the complexities of Paki intervensionism in Kashmir haan (remeber Operation Gibraltor or the jehadi insurgency in Kashmir from 1990 to 2002)? Now you sound more of a rookie juggler from some Lahori circuis than an Afghan Prince....

Ok, ok, you made your point ...no need for further discussion