Pashtuns and neoconservatism-interventionism

[parsiwaan]

I didnt say that they would automatically lose Islam etc. I completely understand that that one need not lose their faith in a secular society. My point was that those that want to violently hoist an ideology onto people, whether it be Islam or Secularism or Communism have the right to undertake this endeavor... but they also then have earned the right to a response from those that they attempt to force this upon.

I loathe and cringe at fifth column citizenry: the idea that America is some massive cadillac that ought to be taken for a ride and used like some cheap prostitute. I loathe Saudi citizens, Israeili citizens, Haitain citizens, and yes, Afghans that want to use American blood and treasure and force America to take on that albatross.

I owe not a single thing to Afghanistan or Pakistan or Saudi for that matter. I owe my life to God alone. I am thankful that the US was the vehicle through which God executed his favor upon me. Now in return, I will do my best to not take part in struggles that Washington and John Quincy Adams warned us to not get involved in. That ensures that Americans of all creeds not die for some fools errand and it ensures that those that yearn for freedom and whatever form of government that they desire can do so abroad.

My view is that Sangar, Omar Hotak Saib, Toramana, Baygham Khan, Osho, Karzai, yourself i you want it, etc should all deal with one another and leave the rest of us to live as we are.

America will be just fine even if a Caliphate of all the rest of the world forms. We have more warheads than a kid has candy on Halloween and an independent country. Mutually assured destruction is a fine principle to abide by and it works.

So what if they loss islam? It will be a blessing to leave this culture of primitive Bedwai arabs that have brought nothing but misery for people of region….Islam was also forced on your forefather…with Arab sword…..who came looting...under banner of…AlIslam Ul Tahtul Saif---islam is carried under sword. Why don’t you study the history of religion how religion evolved from fear of unknowing…worshiping moon, sun, fire, idols (polytheism) …into monotheism…and new religion of 21 centuries…scientology...before recycling those lazy lefitst bs against war and us...why don't you go and read about Islam history...Ghaneema..how Franks stopped islam advance in Europe.

[Badlun]

The theme of this topic is to create a win-win situation for both Pashtuns and the developed world including the USA by applying the strategy of neoconservatism and interventionism.If some one specially a son or daugher of an Afghan says that he or she only cares of the USA and not of Afghanistan or Pashtuns then this whole discussion becomes meaningless. However as elsewhere discussed The USA is not any other country but the only global super power.

We may not be prejudiced and may try to understand the terms in its real meaning not the propaganda attached to it.

For example interventionism apparently a negative term but as per Wikipedia this also means international acts through international cooperation, decisions guarding international law or global justice,political support or political capital, such as nationalism or ethnic conflict also decide foreign intervention actions such as nation-building and national security policies.

Its objectives can be national security, support for world government, scientific systemic concern of systemic bias in international relations theory, policy of balancing as a goal for balance of power in international relations or balance of threat.

International relations are developed through international cooperation and international organizations giving rise to military alliance, cooperation through a trade pact or development of a trade bloc. These can set common policies of foreign intervention through bilateralism or multilateralism, and international agreement on a treaty.
The development of international law is also done through international cooperation and organizations with implications for foreign intervention actions.

Intervention can be also done by non aggressive means like Promotion of efforts for media or information methods may be used; such as information warfare, propaganda, advertising, political symbolism, media democracy, freedom of information to gain political capital and support for political reform. Publicly organized efforts also appear; like the peace movement and nonviolence organizations, sometimes by religious organizations.
United States military strategy like military operations other than war and Civil-Military Co-operation are examples of how to deal with asymmetric warfare in the War on Terrorism, as well as winning hearts and minds (Iraq)

Efforts in foreign intervention may include diplomacy to dispute resolution. The involved parties in a conflict may negotiate a peace treaty or other treaties. A state may operate as a protecting power on behalf of other states, offering foreign intervention capabilities. This is usually done by a neutral country.
International conventions may be reached by an international consensus. Ideas of equal power relationship and pacifism are sometimes used in diplomacy. Towards the end of the Cold War there was a public rationale and reasoning for a peace dividend with economic benefits of a decrease in defence spending.

Keeping the above in view how can you discredit interventionism as an effective tool in the hands of the USA to bring desirable changes in Afghanistan which are benificial for both Afghans-Pashtuns and the USA.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

The theme of this topic is to create a win-win situation for both Pashtuns and the developed world including the USA by applying the strategy of neoconservatism and interventionism.If some one specially a son or daugher of an Afghan says that he or she only cares of the USA and not of Afghanistan or Pashtuns then this whole discussion becomes meaningless. However as elsewhere discussed The USA is not any other country but the only global super power.

We may not be prejudiced and may try to understand the terms in its real meaning not the propaganda attached to it.

For example interventionism apparently a negative term but as per Wikipedia this also means international acts through international cooperation, decisions guarding international law or global justice,political support or political capital, such as nationalism or ethnic conflict also decide foreign intervention actions such as nation-building and national security policies.

Its objectives can be national security, support for world government, scientific systemic concern of systemic bias in international relations theory, policy of balancing as a goal for balance of power in international relations or balance of threat.

International relations are developed through international cooperation and international organizations giving rise to military alliance, cooperation through a trade pact or development of a trade bloc. These can set common policies of foreign intervention through bilateralism or multilateralism, and international agreement on a treaty.
The development of international law is also done through international cooperation and organizations with implications for foreign intervention actions.

Intervention can be also done by non aggressive means like Promotion of efforts for media or information methods may be used; such as information warfare, propaganda, advertising, political symbolism, media democracy, freedom of information to gain political capital and support for political reform. Publicly organized efforts also appear; like the peace movement and nonviolence organizations, sometimes by religious organizations.
United States military strategy like military operations other than war and Civil-Military Co-operation are examples of how to deal with asymmetric warfare in the War on Terrorism, as well as winning hearts and minds (Iraq)

Efforts in foreign intervention may include diplomacy to dispute resolution. The involved parties in a conflict may negotiate a peace treaty or other treaties. A state may operate as a protecting power on behalf of other states, offering foreign intervention capabilities. This is usually done by a neutral country.
International conventions may be reached by an international consensus. Ideas of equal power relationship and pacifism are sometimes used in diplomacy. Towards the end of the Cold War there was a public rationale and reasoning for a peace dividend with economic benefits of a decrease in defence spending.

Keeping the above in view how can you discredit interventionism as an effective tool in the hands of the USA to bring desirable changes in Afghanistan which are benificial for both Afghans-Pashtuns and the USA.

No, but the track record of the US interventionalists undoes any objective or moral gain that might derive from such attempts at covering up the true motive therein. You have stated openly that your goal, per the original essay, and per Baygham Khan's original statements, is to subvert the natural inclinations of the people and force an ideology on them. It actually is not that dissimilar from avid Khilafaath minded folks that do not understand the immense diversity in the Muslim world makes such endeavors risky and are unrealistic. Your brand of it goes against what General Washington warned about in his farewell address in the quotes above. You basically generated, as he said, a common interest where none exists. Then the outcome has been, as he warned, the parting with, of our own blood and treasure.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

So what if they loss islam? It will be a blessing to leave this culture of primitive Bedwai arabs that have brought nothing but misery for people of region….Islam was also forced on your forefather…with Arab sword…..who came looting...under banner of…AlIslam Ul Tahtul Saif---islam is carried under sword. Why don’t you study the history of religion how religion evolved from fear of unknowing…worshiping moon, sun, fire, idols (polytheism) …into monotheism…and new religion of 21 centuries…scientology...before recycling those lazy lefitst bs against war and us...why don't you go and read about Islam history...Ghaneema..how Franks stopped islam advance in Europe.

I had mistaken poor Baygham Lala with you... I realized subsequently, that I was wrong. His English is superb and his arguments actually have some unifying tie though I still find them wrong and nonevidence based. You on the otherhand were the one I originally asked to go read a few books and learn to write English. I answered you previously regarding that stupid question you had about "Malik" in the latter surahs and you continue to generate dumb questions and useless commentary.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

The theme of this topic is to create a win-win situation for both Pashtuns and the developed world including the USA by applying the strategy of neoconservatism and interventionism.If some one specially a son or daugher of an Afghan says that he or she only cares of the USA and not of Afghanistan or Pashtuns then this whole discussion becomes meaningless. However as elsewhere discussed The USA is not any other country but the only global super power.

We may not be prejudiced and may try to understand the terms in its real meaning not the propaganda attached to it.

For example interventionism apparently a negative term but as per Wikipedia this also means international acts through international cooperation, decisions guarding international law or global justice,political support or political capital, such as nationalism or ethnic conflict also decide foreign intervention actions such as nation-building and national security policies.

Its objectives can be national security, support for world government, scientific systemic concern of systemic bias in international relations theory, policy of balancing as a goal for balance of power in international relations or balance of threat.

International relations are developed through international cooperation and international organizations giving rise to military alliance, cooperation through a trade pact or development of a trade bloc. These can set common policies of foreign intervention through bilateralism or multilateralism, and international agreement on a treaty.
The development of international law is also done through international cooperation and organizations with implications for foreign intervention actions.

Intervention can be also done by non aggressive means like Promotion of efforts for media or information methods may be used; such as information warfare, propaganda, advertising, political symbolism, media democracy, freedom of information to gain political capital and support for political reform. Publicly organized efforts also appear; like the peace movement and nonviolence organizations, sometimes by religious organizations.
United States military strategy like military operations other than war and Civil-Military Co-operation are examples of how to deal with asymmetric warfare in the War on Terrorism, as well as winning hearts and minds (Iraq)

Efforts in foreign intervention may include diplomacy to dispute resolution. The involved parties in a conflict may negotiate a peace treaty or other treaties. A state may operate as a protecting power on behalf of other states, offering foreign intervention capabilities. This is usually done by a neutral country.
International conventions may be reached by an international consensus. Ideas of equal power relationship and pacifism are sometimes used in diplomacy. Towards the end of the Cold War there was a public rationale and reasoning for a peace dividend with economic benefits of a decrease in defence spending.

Keeping the above in view how can you discredit interventionism as an effective tool in the hands of the USA to bring desirable changes in Afghanistan which are benificial for both Afghans-Pashtuns and the USA.

"The United States' policy of non-intervention was maintained throughout most of the 19th century. The first significant foreign intervention by the US was the Spanish-American War, which saw the US occupy and control the Philippines."

That latter was was another murderous disaster by the way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...nterventionism

And in case you want to tout some false logic about a Marshall Plan approach to Afghanistan you need to read:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3870

It debunks your practical views on interventionalism in Afghanistan.

[parsiwaan]

I had mistaken poor Baygham Lala with you... I realized subsequently, that I was wrong. His English is superb and his arguments actually have some unifying tie though I still find them wrong and nonevidence based. You on the otherhand were the one I originally asked to go read a few books and learn to write English. I answered you previously regarding that stupid question you had about "Malik" in the latter surahs and you continue to generate dumb questions and useless commentary.

Seriously people like you first become Russian in 70s and now are Arabs with nonsense that is islamism…maybe since you guys lack a solid culture that could safeguard you…so you fall victum to all these people.... if you think about you people…you lots are like those ******s of the Plantation that would just run away and without a plan... they always got caught and sometimes amputated so they wouldn’t run away again. You lot too have no plans... you just take it as it comes. Say if you defeat US then you will fall victim to a far poor Talib(pakis) that would further reduce you to nothingness and impoverish your society. Your sheltering of Alqaida and turning Afghanistan into a 'terrorist' camp for the mass media were the fundamental causes of your today's misery. In other words, if Hazara youth were that dumb to have created a mahdi jihadi gang then be sure that US would have been in Hazara areas as well. If Tajik harbored an Iranian nationalist camp that attacked US then there would have been US bombs in their own villages. Like I said- you don’t want American bombs? Then get rid of the Talibs. Simple. Only when there is no Talib there is no justification for US or its bombs.

[tor_khan]

Administrator note

REMINDER: Please keep your discussions with the frame of House Rules.

Warnings issued.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

REMINDER: Please keep your discussions with the frame of House Rules.

Warnings issued.

Sorry, I just logged on. I dont know exactly what I said to earn the warning, but Ill avoid ad hominem.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Seriously people like you first become Russian in 70s and now are Arabs with nonsense that is islamism…maybe since you guys lack a solid culture that could safeguard you…so you fall victum to all these people.... if you think about you people…you lots are like those ******s of the Plantation that would just run away and without a plan... they always got caught and sometimes amputated so they wouldn’t run away again. You lot too have no plans... you just take it as it comes. Say if you defeat US then you will fall victim to a far poor Talib(pakis) that would further reduce you to nothingness and impoverish your society. Your sheltering of Alqaida and turning Afghanistan into a 'terrorist' camp for the mass media were the fundamental causes of your today's misery. In other words, if Hazara youth were that dumb to have created a mahdi jihadi gang then be sure that US would have been in Hazara areas as well. If Tajik harbored an Iranian nationalist camp that attacked US then there would have been US bombs in their own villages. Like I said- you don’t want American bombs? Then get rid of the Talibs. Simple. Only when there is no Talib there is no justification for US or its bombs.

I am not advocating Islamism, Russianism, Americanism abroad, or any of the ideas you talk of. Contrary to what you have written, interventionalism in Afghanistan did occur from the all the aforementioned parties including Iran, Russia (your boy Mossoud famously took arms and money from the Russkies and the Indians), and of course, Pakistan. However, the Pashtuns of Pakistan are interlinked with the destiny of Afghanistan. We cannot have it both ways where we claim the NWFP and then deny the Pashtuns of that territory a say in governance. Amanullah, Nadir, etc had Wazirs in their legions for securing the Afghan throne. The subsequent Kharoti instigated incursions ordered by Zahir Shah that occured in the period of Pakistan becoming a nation state worked against our interests. Instead, we ought to have minded our own business, not ordered the first initial slaps against Pakistan, not allowed Pakistan to initiate the campaign of de Pashtunization that was and is occuring in the former NWFP, not given the Pak Army a reason to create their strategic depth theory, and simply watched on the sidelines as Pakistan self implodes. OUr brethren would have returned to us with open arms and we would have accepted them with open arms. Our taking in Abdul Ghaffar Khan and allowing him to beam radio waves out of Kabul in an attempt to destabilize the NWFP was both foolish in terms of a Pashtun unification goal and instigatory. It has done nothing to bring the masses of the NWFP toward a greater goal of Pashtun unity. Sure, my words will make some here very upset and I will be accused of being a Paki pawn or whatever brand if illogical epithets they throw at me. But these are clear cogent facts. I firmly believe that Zahir Shah made a series of stupid mistakes and we allowed Pakistan to take advantage of those mistakes to further their own ends. No matter what Baygham, Toramana, and Osho say, the overwhelming majority of sentiment in the NWFP is against joining into an alliance of a greater Pashtunistan or Afghanistan. And that is the greatest tragedy.

So spare me the swan song about being a pawn of Pakistan etc. You have not been able to prove a single thing you advocate for since you opened your mouth. You state the same criticisms again and again about some idiotic conclusion you drew about some word Malik in surah such and such and I completely devastated your criticism previously.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

I am not advocating Islamism, Russianism, Americanism abroad, or any of the ideas you talk of. Contrary to what you have written, interventionalism in Afghanistan did occur from the all the aforementioned parties including Iran, Russia (your boy Mossoud famously took arms and money from the Russkies and the Indians), and of course, Pakistan. However, the Pashtuns of Pakistan are interlinked with the destiny of Afghanistan. We cannot have it both ways where we claim the NWFP and then deny the Pashtuns of that territory a say in governance. Amanullah, Nadir, etc had Wazirs in their legions for securing the Afghan throne. The subsequent Kharoti instigated incursions ordered by Zahir Shah that occured in the period of Pakistan becoming a nation state worked against our interests. Instead, we ought to have minded our own business, not ordered the first initial slaps against Pakistan, not allowed Pakistan to initiate the campaign of de Pashtunization that was and is occuring in the former NWFP, not given the Pak Army a reason to create their strategic depth theory, and simply watched on the sidelines as Pakistan self implodes. OUr brethren would have returned to us with open arms and we would have accepted them with open arms. Our taking in Abdul Ghaffar Khan and allowing him to beam radio waves out of Kabul in an attempt to destabilize the NWFP was both foolish in terms of a Pashtun unification goal and instigatory. It has done nothing to bring the masses of the NWFP toward a greater goal of Pashtun unity. Sure, my words will make some here very upset and I will be accused of being a Paki pawn or whatever brand if illogical epithets they throw at me. But these are clear cogent facts. I firmly believe that Zahir Shah made a series of stupid mistakes and we allowed Pakistan to take advantage of those mistakes to further their own ends. No matter what Baygham, Toramana, and Osho say, the overwhelming majority of sentiment in the NWFP is against joining into an alliance of a greater Pashtunistan or Afghanistan. And that is the greatest tragedy.

So spare me the swan song about being a pawn of Pakistan etc. You have not been able to prove a single thing you advocate for since you opened your mouth. You state the same criticisms again and again about some idiotic conclusion you drew about some word Malik in surah such and such and I completely devastated your criticism previously.

I disagree with that. Bacha Khan and Samad khan were the most popular political movements in the settled areas of north and south pashtunkhwa. If anything supporting them was legitimate. That was Afghan territory, Afghanistan could not keep quiet and let that state take its form only to lose any potential chance. Had they kept quiet and let things go as they did, Afghanistan would have lost legitimacy in the eyes of the claiming of land, as well as their own people. Zahir Shah's folly was that he was too meek to mete out measures when they counted. He had chances in 48, 65 and 71 but he stood on the sidelines.

Pakistan's strategic depth policy would have formulated (in my opinion) without the durand line issue considering that Pakistan wanted a friendly government. They looked at the region as a zero-sum game. I.e. either we have access to central asia via Afghanistan or India does. This was Pakistan's own mistake and one for which they will suffer. Your logic is also highly victimizing. In essence the same logic can be applied to Palestine. I.e. it was the Palestinians fault for creating PLO and this led to MOSSAD backing Hamas to create a wedge in the Palestinian movement. Surely that is an unfair indictment on a state considering the land was rightfully theirs.

Yes a large portion of Pashtuns east of the durand line do not see a future in unification yet. The key point being yet. This is due to the breakdown of the state of Afghanistan and the lack of any real political muscle. This has led to a foggy scenario. On one hand strategic depth is backfiring on Pakistan and the talibs are not what they once were. On the other the nationalist parties either don't have the capabilities or are not in the position to bring about the unity. Geo-politics of the region count as well. We can't act in a vacuum in the region.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Well I am not a neoconservative, for I have too many liberal traits, but I am not stuck in liberal dogma either. I believe in making the best of any situation. With USA pumping the Taliban, I was happy with a hundred year struggle for survival. With USA decimating the Taliban, I am happy for the opportunity. In both situation the goal and the wish remains the same – to have similar opportunities for life and security for fellow pashtoons what others have in developed world. I see tremendous opportunity both financially and spiritually in such an outcome, a win win for all in pashtoon land.

I was very disappointed to read that.
As my brother says, our parents and grandparents did not make all those sacrifices so we can buy a Porsche in USA and become middle class sub-urbanites. Those sacrifices were a last gasping effort to do something, to drag them and us out of abysmal darkness they saw and still see around them in watan. Nobody asked us for a similar sacrifice, but not to care at all. Wow, even I am speechless.

I dont own a porsche Baygham Khan and I dont plan to. I prefer used Hondas and drive a mid 90s accord. I do my own engine work from time to time on it and love the fact that this car will likely last me another 10 years or so and another few hundred thousand miles.

That being said, you mistook what I meant. Any human being, seeing another human being suffer, gets a twinge of emotion, otherwise they are sociopathic. However, there are ethical standards we must adhere to as Americans or else we become unethical Americans who do not adhere to the original constitutional foundations of the state. As a private citizen, you have every right to recruit me to build hospitals in Qandahar or Jalalabad or Swabi etc. However, it is theft on a large scale and completely immoral to drag the American nation state and its people into a nation building exercise and a gauranteed war of attrition.

I believe that when we came here as immigrants (or at least our parents came here) we joined a club with the ground rules being that we check our parent nations/nation of ancestory's troubles at the door. We cannot as a nation state take part in all the internecine conflicts that stem from being a nation of immigrants.

It is unfortunate that a whole generation of Americans learned grade D civic studies or at least are grade D intellects when it comes to learning about American Civics and historical engagements. Had they listened closely in class they would understand the inherent dangers of adopting the struggles of other nation states and battling nonexistent monsters, or worse, creating monsters where none existed before. Instead this generation of Americans is not raised on constitutional civics... it is raised on GI Joe and Superman Comic Books, instilling a foolish belief that America is the world's policeman.

For instance, a series of idiotic actions have involved America in a religious conflict between Muslims and Jews. This is primarily because neoconservatives, as conclusively shown by Pat Buchanon above, have made protection of the Israeili state a tenant of their ideology. On the other end, we have the Saudi lobby ensuring that we remain the sole supporters of a tyrannical regime. How does this in anyway support our national security goals or buttress our ingenuity as Americans? How does it accord withour principles at home? Our ingenuinity becomes stunted because instead of pursuing alternative energy sources we are like a heroin addict requiring our below market price crude oil fix.

One day, when you are a married man, if you are not already, you will see that you have to be ethical and selective about which problems you take on. I recently found out (2 days ago or so) that I am to be a father. Is it proper for me to first take care of my children, feed, clothe, and shelter them... or shall I force the state to care for them in my absence? Shall I take care of other people's wives before my own wife? Should I drag my neighbors into a conflict between tribes and people that has been ongoing since before my birth, that is going on thousands of miles away from here? Will I lie to them and construct a national security paradigm that is nonexistent and faulty telling them that they must hoist secular democracy on a group of goat herders otherwise we are doomed to see the jandaa of la illihaa il ul llah flying above the White House? Or should I tell them the truth of the matter regarding how our interventionism abroad has earned us the resentment and anger of millions that are willing to violently undo our actions?

The difference between Osho and yourself on the one hand and myself on the other is that I cannot sit in front of Peter King's commission and lie to him about the radicalization of the youth in Muslim communities being due to some Wahhabi conspiracy. I cannot convince him to throw billions at a lunatic project that entails hoisting secularism onto the Islamic world's masses. By way of comparison, I cannot endorse a lunatic project to hoist Hanbali jurist traditions onto the Afghan Masses that are rabidly Hanafi. I must tell him the truth, which is that the Salafi tradition as defined by Dr. Wiktorowitz is acceptable in all these Muslim Locales (Somalia, Qandahar, Waziristan, Chechnya) because the concept of defensive warfare is a cornerstone element of the Islamic faith itself. This is exactly why even the Saudi state's cleric that were threatened by Mr. Bin Ladin dare not label the latter as a takfiri... because they know full well that the real Takfiri are in no way Salafi and are in turn not welcomed by the masses. In summary, I would urge him to divest from interventionism in South America, Africa, and the Islamic World, but to maintain a strong tradition of commerce. Allow the national security thread to fold in on itself. After all, once you remove yourself as the focal point of all these groups as a common enemy, they involute and begin fighting eachother. One astute mujahid, watching that exact involution occur after the full nexus of Russian intervention was removed, commented that the aftermath of the Afghan War showed Muslims are indeed the best killers of other Muslims.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I disagree with that. Bacha Khan and Samad khan were the most popular political movements in the settled areas of north and south pashtunkhwa. If anything supporting them was legitimate. That was Afghan territory, Afghanistan could not keep quiet and let that state take its form only to lose any potential chance. Had they kept quiet and let things go as they did, Afghanistan would have lost legitimacy in the eyes of the claiming of land, as well as their own people. Zahir Shah's folly was that he was too meek to mete out measures when they counted. He had chances in 48, 65 and 71 but he stood on the sidelines.

Pakistan's strategic depth policy would have formulated (in my opinion) without the durand line issue considering that Pakistan wanted a friendly government. They looked at the region as a zero-sum game. I.e. either we have access to central asia via Afghanistan or India does. This was Pakistan's own mistake and one for which they will suffer. Your logic is also highly victimizing. In essence the same logic can be applied to Palestine. I.e. it was the Palestinians fault for creating PLO and this led to MOSSAD backing Hamas to create a wedge in the Palestinian movement. Surely that is an unfair indictment on a state considering the land was rightfully theirs.

Yes a large portion of Pashtuns east of the durand line do not see a future in unification yet. The key point being yet. This is due to the breakdown of the state of Afghanistan and the lack of any real political muscle. This has led to a foggy scenario. On one hand strategic depth is backfiring on Pakistan and the talibs are not what they once were. On the other the nationalist parties either don't have the capabilities or are not in the position to bring about the unity. Geo-politics of the region count as well. We can't act in a vacuum in the region.

We were our own independent nation state. We had a British stooge and murderer, the Iron Amir, AbdurRahman, great grandfathher of the opportunist Prince Ali Seraj validate that line. The Palestinians in no way conceded that territory until recently under an unelected and unrepresentative, Mehmud Abbas. The Pashtuns of the NWFP would not have stood idly by as an Russianized Afghan force marched on Peshawar in any of those time periods you note.

And as always, I stand by the right of the Yusfuzai, Khalil, Dawar, Mehsud, Bajauri, Quetta Abdalyaan, etc to make their own decision regarding the destiny of their lands. It is completely improper for an Abdali or a Ghilzai to tell any of the aforementioned that their traditional lands belong to any of us, to Qandahar, or to Kabul.

The friction was always there. Read the history of how an Arbab Khalil attempted to kill Timur Shah when he visited Peshawar. The Arab had the goal of removing the Awdalyaan's yolk on what he believed were his own territories. The Marwatis also hated paying a tax to the Afghan state and not being properly represented in a loya jirga.

That being said, my dream is to see this wall of separation rent asunder. I truly do not enjoy the fact that I am a "kabuli" to my brethren and have experienced this on my travels... but I do know enough from the interactions now with branches of my wife's family and my mothers family that they are a long way from accepting Karzai as their president.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

We were our own independent nation state. We had a British stooge and murderer, the Iron Amir, AbdurRahman, great grandfathher of the opportunist Prince Ali Seraj validate that line. The Palestinians in no way conceded that territory until recently under an unelected and unrepresentative, Mehmud Abbas. The Pashtuns of the NWFP would not have stood idly by as an Russianized Afghan force marched on Peshawar in any of those time periods you note.

And as always, I stand by the right of the Yusfuzai, Khalil, Dawar, Mehsud, Bajauri, Quetta Abdalyaan, etc to make their own decision regarding the destiny of their lands. It is completely improper for an Abdali or a Ghilzai to tell any of the aforementioned that their traditional lands belong to any of us, to Qandahar, or to Kabul.

The friction was always there. Read the history of how an Arbab Khalil attempted to kill Timur Shah when he visited Peshawar. The Arab had the goal of removing the Awdalyaan's yolk on what he believed were his own territories. The Marwatis also hated paying a tax to the Afghan state and not being properly represented in a loya jirga.

That being said, my dream is to see this wall of separation rent asunder. I truly do not enjoy the fact that I am a "kabuli" to my brethren and have experienced this on my travels... but I do know enough from the interactions now with branches of my wife's family and my mothers family that they are a long way from accepting Karzai as their president.

There are abdalis and ghilzais in Pashtunkwha too as they are yusufzais, salarzais (which make a big chunk of the bajaur population) in Afghanistan. Friction is one thing and that too between a tribal people and a once royal family. So we can't apply those events to today.

About the treaty itself, there are varying points of history. I merely pointed out the palestinian example when you mentioned Pakistan's policy. I used it as an example to point out a fault in your logic.

Wrora to be frank I don't know where you stand or one which side. One side you are america first then on the other you are talking about unity. Then you talk about not speaking for other tribesman.

It doesn't have to do with Karzai...whether or not he is or isn't the president. First of all, you don't need each and every person to support someone for presidency. Second of all, I doubt the majority of the pashtuns on either side support him. Having said that Pashtuns have a jirga system and can agree upon their leadership when the moment strikes. All in good time.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

There are abdalis and ghilzais in Pashtunkwha too as they are yusufzais, salarzais (which make a big chunk of the bajaur population) in Afghanistan. Friction is one thing and that too between a tribal people and a once royal family. So we can't apply those events to today.

About the treaty itself, there are varying points of history. I merely pointed out the palestinian example when you mentioned Pakistan's policy. I used it as an example to point out a fault in your logic.

Wrora to be frank I don't know where you stand or one which side. One side you are america first then on the other you are talking about unity. Then you talk about not speaking for other tribesman.

It doesn't have to do with Karzai...whether or not he is or isn't the president. First of all, you don't need each and every person to support someone for presidency. Second of all, I doubt the majority of the pashtuns on either side support him. Having said that Pashtuns have a jirga system and can agree upon their leadership when the moment strikes. All in good time.

OK let me clarify. I basically think that Pakistan is its own worst enemy. What allows it to sustain itself is its military. What sustains its military are a few focal points: India (perhaps a credible threat per their backing the Mukhtee Bahini in Bengladesh), and implicity America (though they dare not say it openly). What also sustains its military in our direction and has beguiled our brethren there is this idiotic notion that there are good taliban and bad taliban. Somehow, to the NWFP masses, H Mehsud is a bad taliban that is funded by India... Omar Hotak is a brave warrior fighting an aggressor. Yet the conundrum is that the two have aligning goals. In fact, the Khost operation orchestrated by H Mehsud shows conclusively that H Mehsud aligns his goals with that of Omar Hotak (i.e. he offed 7 CIA agents.. why would he bite the hand that feeds him). Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef also appears to castigate Pakistan for playing each and every side. Mr. Bin Ladin himself eventually criticized the current Pakistani government's methodology and earned the rebuke of Khalid Khwajaa.

So my point in all of this is that A) Zahir Shah and the Muhammadzai house were in general inept, stupid, corrupt, and worthless. B) What was the point of inviting our brethren to become a part of the stupidity of A) and C) Pakistan can edge itself towards civil war with a few hasty actions all on its own. We need not make ourselves the focal point of all this.

I will state for the record, I am an American First. My life has begun here and will likely end here, unless God sees fit to deliver me elsewhere. So I am but a well wisher from abroad. As a private citizen, I can advocate unity, but I cannot fund a US war in Pakistan or Afghanistan to accomplish the Zionist equivalent of a Pashtun state. I am simply commenting, as an outsider, with links to both places, what appears to be the inhibiter to a confederacy of united Pashtuns.

There are Awdalyaan in Peshawar and other places, but their links, like that of SU Durrani and others are distant. They have no land in Qandahar proper or Kabul. Some of them, like SU Durrani and the other Pashtun Durranis (actual descendents of Ahmad Shah himself I might add) support the Pakistani state.

Take for example, our resident Pashtun from Pakistan Shahbaz Khan. I would greatly pain me to see a situation where he or his family were harmed in a civil war between Pashtuns. He is a patriotic Pakistani, but that is because he is a product of where he was raised. How could I live with myself if I advocated forcibly making him join Afghanistan and likely causing the deaths of his family members in the the frontier corps etc? I wouldn't be able to. So therefore, I tend to side with Ghaznavi the Agnostic on this one and prefer to fund and work with private citizen endeavors that have no political basis or fortune in the Afghan conflict. I would have no probleml building a hospital system there it will serve bangra Pashtuns, Hardline Pashtuns, Communist Pashtuns etc.

However, I will not do what Peter King (the congressman that is not attempting to hold a panel on radical Muslims etc) did. He funded and really involved Americans in the IRA struggle for independence from the british by cozying up to Gerry Adams and others. I cannot procur American tax dollars to fund an independent Pashtunistan. This is despite my view as being a well wisher to the Irish and Scottish that wanted to throw off the British yolk.

[parsiwaan]

I am not advocating Islamism, Russianism, Americanism abroad, or any of the ideas you talk of. Contrary to what you have written, interventionalism in Afghanistan did occur from the all the aforementioned parties including Iran, Russia (your boy Mossoud famously took arms and money from the Russkies and the Indians), and of course, Pakistan. However, the Pashtuns of Pakistan are interlinked with the destiny of Afghanistan. We cannot have it both ways where we claim the NWFP and then deny the Pashtuns of that territory a say in governance. Amanullah, Nadir, etc had Wazirs in their legions for securing the Afghan throne. The subsequent Kharoti instigated incursions ordered by Zahir Shah that occured in the period of Pakistan becoming a nation state worked against our interests. Instead, we ought to have minded our own business, not ordered the first initial slaps against Pakistan, not allowed Pakistan to initiate the campaign of de Pashtunization that was and is occuring in the former NWFP, not given the Pak Army a reason to create their strategic depth theory, and simply watched on the sidelines as Pakistan self implodes. OUr brethren would have returned to us with open arms and we would have accepted them with open arms. Our taking in Abdul Ghaffar Khan and allowing him to beam radio waves out of Kabul in an attempt to destabilize the NWFP was both foolish in terms of a Pashtun unification goal and instigatory. It has done nothing to bring the masses of the NWFP toward a greater goal of Pashtun unity. Sure, my words will make some here very upset and I will be accused of being a Paki pawn or whatever brand if illogical epithets they throw at me. But these are clear cogent facts. I firmly believe that Zahir Shah made a series of stupid mistakes and we allowed Pakistan to take advantage of those mistakes to further their own ends. No matter what Baygham, Toramana, and Osho say, the overwhelming majority of sentiment in the NWFP is against joining into an alliance of a greater Pashtunistan or Afghanistan. And that is the greatest tragedy.

So spare me the swan song about being a pawn of Pakistan etc. You have not been able to prove a single thing you advocate for since you opened your mouth. You state the same criticisms again and again about some idiotic conclusion you drew about some word Malik in surah such and such and I completely devastated your criticism previously.

Pakistan strategic depth is not a revenge policy off Pashtunistan policy...rather a necessity for survival of paki state.
Pakistan is founded on an impossible idea of a country for South Asian Muslims and at the same time has kept the feudal structure of the society. As a result the leaders have cultivated Islamist extremists any time they needed to direct the masses on something else than the gross inequalities in the country and the inefficiency of the economy. As a result the Islamist extremists have grown to a formidable force. And the economy is in a rut. Strategic depth purpose is to redirect masses on “Islamic jahad” against Hindu+Afghan+Zeionist alliance that want to destroyed “fortress of islam.”

What I don’t understand you can preach against US intervention and US presence in Afghanistan.
If you liked your people and knew your interest then you will peach for defeat of puki creatures Talibs first then you could milk US for all they are worth. Call their bluff and hold them on their ideals and beliefs... see who blinks first. On other hand you can only beat America when you kill the enemy within- a united Pashtun can only defeat a resource-full America. Defeating Taliban is far cheaper and achievable than defeating US right now. Not to mention that if you defeat US first then you fall victim to a far poor Talib that would further reduce you to nothingness and impoverish your society.
I believe a better and a far more wise plan would be to first fight against Taliban and liberate yourselves from them. Hold Uncle Sam down to pay for all of your institutions so that the repeat of the Russian 'victory' wont happen. You could milk them till you think that you are standing on your feet and use the very same exact institutions to liberate yourselves from your second and last enemy- US. US could only be defeated with peace and through a civil society. Iran liberated itself from US through the very same institutions that were supposedly American friendly 32 years ago. Egypt is doing it today. India did it 60 years ago. Turkey did it 90 years ago. China did it 70 years ago. etc etc do that or perish. For America is not the main cause of your misery- you ghoolness and division from within is.
As you might know I was actually banned for few weeks for speaking my mind, I will try to find your reply to Milak post and read it.