Pashtuns and neoconservatism-interventionism

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Troops of The USA should leave and must leave once the Taliban and Alqaida are defeated completely in Afghanistan.This will be a great success for Afghanistan, the USA and the world. Meanwhile USA should enable the Afghanistan to be a secure and developed country.

But USA is not present only in Afghanistan. USA is the biggest donor of the the UN and all development organizations. USAID is every where and should continue to be in Afghanistan once the troops leave. We all should be thankful to the USA for all the efforts against the terrorism and its role in the development of our country.

With the help of the USA we defeated Communism and soon we shall defeat Terrorism. That Taliban who were ruling Afghanistan now dont have a single inch in Afghanistan where they can have a legitimate and internationally recognized rule or control.

Once the troops leave, engagement of the USA will continue in Afghanistan. That will be a blessing for us as our economy will develop, our infrastructure will be built and our health and education will improve.

In Neocon this Translates to: We will continue to not use logic, provide evidence, promote rabid interventionalism and ensure that many more Afghans are maimed or worse as we attempt to force our ideologies on them. Regarding the Americans, we will use and abuse their young boys to fight the war that Osho, Baygham, and others refuse to fight themselves.

As usual, note the utter lack of evidence. Note that just recently, the joke was on NATO because the Taliban proved effective enough to direct attacks from prison:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/wo.../11afghan.html

You cannot even control them in jail, yet you think you have stopped them elsewhere. Give me a break. Go take a course on Insurgency 101.

[Badlun]

Lets once again try to understand the concept of interventionism which is a positive concept and may not be taken as a misnomer. Muslims and Pashtuns can better understand if they think that how the Arabs started from Makkah and Madina and intervened aggressively in the present day Muslim world. Was that not intervention and that too aggressive. Preaching Islam and Sufism can be the Islamic brands of non-aggressive interventionism.

Did Ahmad Shah Abdali did not intervene in the Marhatta Affairs. Did Sher shah Suri did not intervene in the Mughal Affairs. The same was done by Mughals, by Lodhis, by Sultans and by many.

We have ideologies for supporting varying degrees of foreign intervention in international relations which have philosophical, religious or scientific origins.Can some one refute them!

Within political philosophy there are variations giving ideological foundation and reasoning to different degrees of foreign interventionism.we have doctrines like the Doctrine for Just War (of religious origin). Military science through military doctrine and military strategy also include geopolitical strategy.

Then we have the International relations theory which is the scientific study of such policies, methods and paradigms resulting in scientific modelling through the interdisciplinary fields of systems philosophy and systems science.

Some central philosophical and systemic topics on foreign intervention and war studies include:philosophy of war,deterrence theory,preemptive war, preventive war,war of aggression,global justice,right of revolution,international law,"The ends justify the means"

Again the non-aggression principle holds that aggression is inherently illegitimate, but does not preclude defence against aggression.

I am in favour of the Marxist international relations theory and later World-systems approach which are essentially opposing any policies of domination or hegemony such as world domination. But the idea of complex interdependence argue that the decline of military force as a policy tool, the increase in economic and other forms of interdependence should increase the probability of cooperation among states.

Some theories that promote less aggressive foreign intervention are:
Critical international relations theory
Constructivism in international relations
Neoliberalism in international relations
Institutionalism in international relations
English school of international relations theory

Theories openly supporting explicitly aggressive foreign intervention are:
political realism
Neorealism (international relations)
Neoconservatism
Objectivism - Objectivist views on Islam and the War on Terror
Khomeinism

Political realism states that the overriding 'national interest' of each state is its national security and survival; as well as that to ensure this security, states must be on constant preparation for conflict through economic and military build-up. Ruhollah Khomeini believed in Muslim unity and social solidarity, as well as the export of Islamic revolution throughout the world: "Establishing the Islamic state world-wide belong to the great goals of the revolution."

Public opposition to aggressive foreign intervention along with public activism has also promoted nonviolence as an alternative to passive acceptance of oppression and armed struggle against it through actions like direct action and nonviolent intervention. An example of such internationally organized nonviolent intervention is the Peace Brigades International.

Can any one refute these these theories and concepts!
(parts of this post has been taken from wikipedia)

[Badlun]

Why we cant undeerstand this simple fact that the USA is not imposing any thing bad on Afghans or Pashtuns. They are not propagating the ideologies like those of Communism, atheism but just fighting against Terrorism and the enemies of humanity.If the USA talks of any ideology then that is democracy, education, human rights, development, prosperity. Do you see any thing bad in it. Dont you want these for Pashtuns.

If the troops have some setbacks then instead of having jubilation on that , we should take it a tragedy in a just war and ponder over how such mishaps can be avoided.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Lets once again try to understand the concept of interventionism which is a positive concept and may not be taken as a misnomer. Muslims and Pashtuns can better understand if they think that how the Arabs started from Makkah and Madina and intervened aggressively in the present day Muslim world. Was that not intervention and that too aggressive. Preaching Islam and Sufism can be the Islamic brands of non-aggressive interventionism.

Did Ahmad Shah Abdali did not intervene in the Marhatta Affairs. Did Sher shah Suri did not intervene in the Mughal Affairs. The same was done by Mughals, by Lodhis, by Sultans and by many.

We have ideologies for supporting varying degrees of foreign intervention in international relations which have philosophical, religious or scientific origins.Can some one refute them!

Within political philosophy there are variations giving ideological foundation and reasoning to different degrees of foreign interventionism.we have doctrines like the Doctrine for Just War (of religious origin). Military science through military doctrine and military strategy also include geopolitical strategy.

Then we have the International relations theory which is the scientific study of such policies, methods and paradigms resulting in scientific modelling through the interdisciplinary fields of systems philosophy and systems science.

Some central philosophical and systemic topics on foreign intervention and war studies include:philosophy of war,deterrence theory,preemptive war, preventive war,war of aggression,global justice,right of revolution,international law,"The ends justify the means"

Again the non-aggression principle holds that aggression is inherently illegitimate, but does not preclude defence against aggression.

I am in favour of the Marxist international relations theory and later World-systems approach which are essentially opposing any policies of domination or hegemony such as world domination. But the idea of complex interdependence argue that the decline of military force as a policy tool, the increase in economic and other forms of interdependence should increase the probability of cooperation among states.

Some theories that promote less aggressive foreign intervention are:
Critical international relations theory
Constructivism in international relations
Neoliberalism in international relations
Institutionalism in international relations
English school of international relations theory

Theories openly supporting explicitly aggressive foreign intervention are:
political realism
Neorealism (international relations)
Neoconservatism
Objectivism - Objectivist views on Islam and the War on Terror
Khomeinism

Political realism states that the overriding 'national interest' of each state is its national security and survival; as well as that to ensure this security, states must be on constant preparation for conflict through economic and military build-up. Ruhollah Khomeini believed in Muslim unity and social solidarity, as well as the export of Islamic revolution throughout the world: "Establishing the Islamic state world-wide belong to the great goals of the revolution."

Public opposition to aggressive foreign intervention along with public activism has also promoted nonviolence as an alternative to passive acceptance of oppression and armed struggle against it through actions like direct action and nonviolent intervention. An example of such internationally organized nonviolent intervention is the Peace Brigades International.

Can any one refute these these theories and concepts!
(parts of this post has been taken from wikipedia)

You're still wrong per the above definition because you self define aggression. What security analysts note is that your brand of interventionalism is basically what ibn Khaldun called being "the opportunist." By Ibn Khaldun's definition you are that individual that is unwilling to live up to your principles and rally those that ought to be fighting in the field (you, Toramana, Baygham, etc) and instead, you are willing to let Steve, Tom, Bob, and Bill die out there or be maimed. You instead see the US as a vessel to be used and abused for your own vain desires. Finally, there is the outward enemy and the inward enemy. We would call that tribesman that goes out and sells his tribe out to the enemy a traitor right? So you have, clearly, per your own writings agreed that the Pashtuns in general do not see eye to eye with you when it comes to social mores, secularism, and religion. That then makes it so that you prefer to impose what you want them to do, onto them. So how do the pashtuns there see you and your collaborative desires to impose your values onto them?

Moreover, you have no historical precedent regarding the interaction of the US with indigenous tribes of any nation that shows that the US created an environment for such people that was in line with the occupied's goals. Your marshall plan for Afghanistan was thoroughly rebutted in the article above by the CATO institute.

Also, you self define what you believe is in our nation interests based on how you defined your national security interests... which once again is illogical and nonevidence based. Al Qaeda has dispersed from Afghanistan itself. The Taliban, which is a blanket term now for all aspects of the anti Karzai insurgency, is without a doubt fed by Afghan manpower. So now, we face a national security thread per unlimited spending on a war of attrition that is unwinnable.

http://the-diplomat.com/2010/07/01/w...st-afghan-war/

So what it comes down to Osho is that this is not about Afghans... its about your murderous fantansies. You want to see the Afghan woman outside of the home... so you are going to be sure to hold a gun to her head and force her out. You want to see the Pashtun man separate church and state so you sure will hold a gun to his head to do so. No wait... you wont do it, youll make an American do it and lose his sleep and soul.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Why we cant undeerstand this simple fact that the USA is not imposing any thing bad on Afghans or Pashtuns. They are not propagating the ideologies like those of Communism, atheism but just fighting against Terrorism and the enemies of humanity.If the USA talks of any ideology then that is democracy, education, human rights, development, prosperity. Do you see any thing bad in it. Dont you want these for Pashtuns.

If the troops have some setbacks then instead of having jubilation on that , we should take it a tragedy in a just war and ponder over how such mishaps can be avoided.

Sure they are. They are forcing their worldview onto a people by enforcing secular democracy when men like Abdul Rasul Sayyaf are a part of the government and are vowing to never let that happen because they just do not accept that per the U of M poll. And its not the US because the majority of the Americans are against this war. Its the elite like Lindsey Graham and Barak Obama. Its you that should be forced to lead from the front instead of stammering about how you do some teaching job or some marketing position. You should take an M16 and lead a squadron to do the dirty work yourself.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Why we cant undeerstand this simple fact that the USA is not imposing any thing bad on Afghans or Pashtuns. They are not propagating the ideologies like those of Communism, atheism but just fighting against Terrorism and the enemies of humanity.If the USA talks of any ideology then that is democracy, education, human rights, development, prosperity. Do you see any thing bad in it. Dont you want these for Pashtuns.

If the troops have some setbacks then instead of having jubilation on that , we should take it a tragedy in a just war and ponder over how such mishaps can be avoided.

Also are you that ignorant? Why would anyone trust a group that speaks human rights, democracy, etc but backs Mubarak with tear gas? or that backed Saddam when he was killing Iranians in the droves? or that backed Ben Ali until he was driven out?

Its like me saying, hey Osho, you know, I usually kill 80% of my patients through negligence, but please, bring me your father to put a stent into his heart vessel because in truth, I believe in practicing good medicine 20% of the time.

Are you this obtuse? Do you ignore whole tracts of history? Forget history, do you ignore whole elements of reality and what is going on rigth in front of your eyes?

Its like a man saying to a woman: I believe in being a faithful man that does not cheat on his wife. Yet he goes and cheats with every woman on the block. So then he says to that woman, I want to divorce my wife and marry you, and dont worry, I believe in being loyal to my wife.

[parsiwaan]

I have no issues with your opinions on the Pakistani state and find them to be buttressed in the following by Abdul Salam Zaeef:

"Since the start of Jihad the ISI extended its roots deep into Afghanistan like a cancer puts down roots in the human body...Pakistan is so famous for treachery that it is said they can get milk from a bull. They have two tongues in one mouth, and two faces on one head...they use everybody and deceive everybody...In the twenty-first century there aren't many places left where you can still buy and sell people, but Pakistan remains a hub for this trade."

Mullah zayeef is really Zayhef.. normally in a civilize and functioning gov...mullahs like him will not be eligible to server as directory of Kabul zoo let alone represent Afghanistan to a foreign nation. This feace loving Ferson(his words) deserved the paki treatment...ironic even after being used and abused by pakis he still carry pakistan agenda against Afghanistan…. For past 10 years pakis continue to push for at lest placement of Taliban in Kabul gov…so is Zayef.

However, you are not aware of the complexity in our area because you are not from there. Not every single person fighting the Karzai government ascribes to the Taliban. It is utter foolishness to label every Afghan that has joined the insurgency as simply, a Talib.

Are you sure your not Pakistani? You carry a typical paki discussion…Pakis suffer from Ad Hominem logical falsy… pakis always concus not on evidence for a view but on character of person advancing it…and then seek to discridit the poistion by discrending those that hold them…like “your not form area", "your ill-informed”, “your Hindu" always tend to label opponent as ill-inform, or worst anti-Islam Hindu.
…there are Talirats, there are those drug, electronic and etc smugglers...there are those that lost their relative in NETO bombardment, those that just fight for $...what is the point your trying to make?

Also, you contradict yourself because what is the current Kabul government except feudal? Karzai is the son of a Fofalzai elder who stole the mantle of leadership from the sadozyaan. Ghani is a nonKochaay that claims to be a the tribal leader of them. The rest of them are as feudal as the pakistani heirarchy. There is no meritocracy in accepting them.

Not sure if you purposely try diverge the point of discussion or your just confused? The discussion is about Pakistan and how the feudal land owners uses terrorism and Islamic fanatics to diverge the masses on something else than the gross inequalities in the country and the inefficiency of the economy. Afghanistan and her feudal(with exception of Karzia non in current Kabul setup are Feudal) are victim of Pakistani aggression…which is fueled by lack of identity, culture of Punjabi state and lack of understanding and plan stupidity of Pashtun male.

Also, as I stated before, I do not, as an american view this country as some cheap prostitute that ought to be used to further your ends. I am glad you openly state that is your intention because that is what I was writing about inthe first place.

You do not care about american...You want US and world to leave Afghanistan to Pakistan to deal with it as it sees fit (90s)…including the "fierce sense of independence". But then Pakistan has not found its own legs concerning Islamic militancy, nor the relation to Pakistan as a basis for international militants of immediate concern for the West. Ever seen stories of European militants who seek training in Pakistan? All the SCO is nervous concerning Islamic militancy. If Pakistan allows bases for Uzbek militants on Afghan territory, and this is very likely, this is an invitation to a SCO intervention and an international war.
What you Pakis gets out of this alternative compared with the present situation is that the main war theatre is moved from Pakistani to Afghan territory.

[faye]

osho, i would love to see one of those scientific studies for international relations.
1 cage+100mice+1 eagle, put them together and what have you got? bippity..boppity..boo!!

[BLS_1919v2.0]

@Shamlawar you know what I mean.

@Barakzai - manana. I would agree but add on that they may have certain interests that is pushing this war of attrition. Furthermore, I think they are essentially stuck. They can't as easily (if they wanted to) nor stay. Like I said before, I would love if all these foreigners left (including Pakistan and Iran). Unfortunately for me that isn't the case. If you have a solid way out I am all ears.

@ Unknown prince - don't fool yourself. The western money was not petty cash, but in the hundreds of millions of dollars. It was well thought out and their allies Pakistan and Saudi tagged along. Saudi matched the US aid dollar for dollar (I believe). Those stingers and other arms made a big difference. Plus the collapse of the Soviet Union was more internal and its real breakdown was felt in Eastern Europe. You are only fooling yourself.

BTW Unknown Prince if NATO I won't shed a tear. My family didn't make money off of the khaliqyaan, nor soviets, peerangyaan or Pakistan. Alhamdullilah. Correct me if I am wrong, but weren't the one that suggested Pashtuns should get support from ISI? You seem to be very gung-ho about a certain side in this war. You are Afghan what are you doing sitting on the sidelines then? If I knew which of these sides were good enough I wouldn't cheerlead behind a computer screen. Since this is the case I can only help in charity welfare and information to my people. Daa gaz ao daa maidaan unknownprince...ka domraa pa ddadd yae nu zaan makhae tha ka.

[Baygham]

Also are you that ignorant? Why would anyone trust a group that speaks human rights, democracy, etc but backs Mubarak with tear gas? or that backed Saddam when he was killing Iranians in the droves? or that backed Ben Ali until he was driven out?

Its like me saying, hey Osho, you know, I usually kill 80% of my patients through negligence, but please, bring me your father to put a stent into his heart vessel because in truth, I believe in practicing good medicine 20% of the time.

Are you this obtuse? Do you ignore whole tracts of history? Forget history, do you ignore whole elements of reality and what is going on rigth in front of your eyes?

Its like a man saying to a woman: I believe in being a faithful man that does not cheat on his wife. Yet he goes and cheats with every woman on the block. So then he says to that woman, I want to divorce my wife and marry you, and dont worry, I believe in being loyal to my wife.

I would take a 20% chance when the alternative is 100% certain death.

BTW those are your numbers, others dont paint just dismal figures. I have no problem with 30 years of karzai (10 already) if he could deliver stability and let the youth get educated, and able to run an informed revolt for its own future (like mubarak). That can never happen in a 1000 years of taliban rule.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Are you sure your not Pakistani? You carry a typical paki discussion…Pakis suffer from Ad Hominem logical falsy… pakis always concus not on evidence for a view but on character of person advancing it…and then seek to discridit the poistion by discrending those that hold them…like “your not form area", "your ill-informed”, “your Hindu" always tend to label opponent as ill-inform, or worst anti-Islam Hindu.
…there are Talirats, there are those drug, electronic and etc smugglers...there are those that lost their relative in NETO bombardment, those that just fight for $...what is the point your trying to make?

LOL I just found the bolded parts grievously ironic.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Mullah zayeef is really Zayhef.. normally in a civilize and functioning gov...mullahs like him will not be eligible to server as directory of Kabul zoo let alone represent Afghanistan to a foreign nation. This feace loving Ferson(his words) deserved the paki treatment...ironic even after being used and abused by pakis he still carry pakistan agenda against Afghanistan…. For past 10 years pakis continue to push for at lest placement of Taliban in Kabul gov…so is Zayef.

Not just Pakistan, but the Afghan Government, the U.S. State Department and even Iranian Government are pushing for the Talibans in the government in some way or form. You have to wonder if Taliban were some sort of heinous entity for America, why is America trying to power broker them?

…there are Talirats, there are those drug, electronic and etc smugglers...there are those that lost their relative in NETO bombardment, those that just fight for $...what is the point your trying to make?

There are also those simply labeled "Taliban" but have no actual ideological connections with the Taliban, other than they just don't want farangyan to move freely around their country and imposing themselves on them. Even when Arabs Jihadi migrants were in Afghanistan, they were seldom ever seen or heard by the common Afghans, most Afghans don't even know about the 9/11 Attacks, not surprisingly. However a significant margin of Afghans are keenly aware NATO/U.S. troops intruding their homes, given legal jurisdiction and authority over Afghan civilians. Which side do you believe this would make Afghans want to fight for?

and I'm wholly against the Taliban ideology, but I won't let animosity with Pakistan blind me to what's actually happening in realpolitik.

Not sure if you purposely try diverge the point of discussion or your just confused? The discussion is about Pakistan and how the feudal land owners uses terrorism and Islamic fanatics to diverge the masses on something else than the gross inequalities in the country and the inefficiency of the economy. Afghanistan and her feudal(with exception of Karzia non in current Kabul setup are Feudal) are victim of Pakistani aggression…which is fueled by lack of identity, culture of Punjabi state and lack of understanding and plan stupidity of Pashtun male.

Actually the thread topic is about Interventionism which is a euphemism for Imperial Hegemonistic Intrusion. I'm not sure what you're even trying to say here other than you feel Pakistani Government has created problems in Afghanistan. Which is something we can all agree on. However you're wholly misguided if you think Pakistan does so for "Punjabi" culture or anything to it's own merit. Pakistan is just vessel of it's former Imperial establishment; there's no conflict with Pakistan or America, if America saw Pakistan as an enemy they'd have already completely refurbish every aspect of Pakistan like they did in Iraq.

You do not care about american...You want US and world to leave Afghanistan to Pakistan to deal with it as it sees fit (90s)…including the "fierce sense of independence". But then Pakistan has not found its own legs concerning Islamic militancy, nor the relation to Pakistan as a basis for international militants of immediate concern for the West. Ever seen stories of European militants who seek training in Pakistan? All the SCO is nervous concerning Islamic militancy. If Pakistan allows bases for Uzbek militants on Afghan territory, and this is very likely, this is an invitation to a SCO intervention and an international war.

If merely opposing American military presence was sign of not caring for America , then basically you're insinuating nearly half of America doesn't care for America since according to polls, want America to end their presence in Afghanistan. Not that it's even relevant here. What you fail to realize is Pakistan's power grid depends on the Capitalist/U.S. power grid; and if you're against Pakistan but favor the U.S. then there's something very inconsistent in your argument. The whole spiel about militants has always been a smokescreen and diversion by the Neo-Imperial Nexus's Agenda. The issue of Islamic Militants is not because the U.S. is worried about a few bombs or attacks; but Capitalist power grid on the world is under threat, weakening it's hold on economic manipulation and hegemonic influence. America is on it's last days of being a super power and hegemonic and it's desperately trying to grasp on to it. Uzbeks in Afghanistan or afghans in Tajikistan is a threat to them, not because they can militarily do a great deal of damage but politically and economically they can galvanize the East and that means the Capitalists are no longer at the control of the world order. They never thought that bringing the downfall of communism would eventually bring their own. now it is. Capitalism is a parasitic system, needed communism to justify itself; now it can't.

What you Pakis gets out of this alternative compared with the present situation is that the main war theatre is moved from Pakistani to Afghan territory.

Childish name calling is generic scapegoat when someone can't deal with reality. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you're a supporter of Massoud. But Lets face it, the ONLY reason Massoud went against Pakistan, isn't because he saw Pakistan as some evil threat. It's because Pakistan cut off any money and weapons he was supposed to be receiving, and rather gave them to other psychos like Hekmatyar. If you examine Massoud's history he used to go and get training and tutelage with the ISI as early as 1972. The Massoud battle was a power struggle, rather than a rebellion against Pakistani motives. If Massoud received all the money and arms from Pakistan and Pakistan supported Massoud over Hekmatyar, you'd consider Pakistan your Messiah.

[graveyardofempires]

why are you guys wasting your times arguing with braindead zombies such as parsiwaan.
he is the ultimate embodiment of ignorance and hatred.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Mullah zayeef is really Zayhef.. normally in a civilize and functioning gov...mullahs like him will not be eligible to server as directory of Kabul zoo let alone represent Afghanistan to a foreign nation. This feace loving Ferson(his words) deserved the paki treatment...ironic even after being used and abused by pakis he still carry pakistan agenda against Afghanistan…. For past 10 years pakis continue to push for at lest placement of Taliban in Kabul gov…so is Zayef.


Are you sure your not Pakistani? You carry a typical paki discussion…Pakis suffer from Ad Hominem logical falsy… pakis always concus not on evidence for a view but on character of person advancing it…and then seek to discridit the poistion by discrending those that hold them…like “your not form area", "your ill-informed”, “your Hindu" always tend to label opponent as ill-inform, or worst anti-Islam Hindu.
…there are Talirats, there are those drug, electronic and etc smugglers...there are those that lost their relative in NETO bombardment, those that just fight for $...what is the point your trying to make?


Not sure if you purposely try diverge the point of discussion or your just confused? The discussion is about Pakistan and how the feudal land owners uses terrorism and Islamic fanatics to diverge the masses on something else than the gross inequalities in the country and the inefficiency of the economy. Afghanistan and her feudal(with exception of Karzia non in current Kabul setup are Feudal) are victim of Pakistani aggression…which is fueled by lack of identity, culture of Punjabi state and lack of understanding and plan stupidity of Pashtun male.



You do not care about american...You want US and world to leave Afghanistan to Pakistan to deal with it as it sees fit (90s)…including the "fierce sense of independence". But then Pakistan has not found its own legs concerning Islamic militancy, nor the relation to Pakistan as a basis for international militants of immediate concern for the West. Ever seen stories of European militants who seek training in Pakistan? All the SCO is nervous concerning Islamic militancy. If Pakistan allows bases for Uzbek militants on Afghan territory, and this is very likely, this is an invitation to a SCO intervention and an international war.
What you Pakis gets out of this alternative compared with the present situation is that the main war theatre is moved from Pakistani to Afghan territory.

Lets summarize what we know about you

1) You jump from thread to thread repeating the same questions that are idiotic about the word malik being utilized for the angel that gaurds hell... and one other even more idiotic criticism of the Quran. So you are already out of touch with 99% of Afghans. Even your beloved Mossoud would disown you in a heart beat. How do you like the fact that Sheikh Abdul Azzam wanted him to lead Afghanistan? Why do you fail to see the Arab agenda there?

2) Pakistan: So pretty much, I like every Pashtun in the NWFP better than I like you. You can end up in a garbage heap (Panjshir) somewhere and I wouldnt shed a tear. I hope that summarizes my view for you. Now, I like folks like Alchemist, a non Pashtun, and northern Afghan better than I like a number of Pashtuns though (so thats the qualifier). Probably because the latter doesn't wreak of a slave mentality like you and is not a typically sneaky farsiban.

What dont you understand that in the heads of most Pashtuns:
urdooban = farsiban?

3) Get over your victim mentality. Pakistan this and Pakistan that and Pakistan is hiding under your bed ready to eat your children. Arabs are waiting in dark corners of the night. Give me a break. You completely ignored the fact that every member of this governemnt from Sadati to Karzai go Ghani to Ghilani to Ahadey were all dog washers... good for nothing feudals that left their country in shambles.

You seem like the type that blames Pakistan for an F grade you got in English.

Pakistan is getting a taste of its own medicine right now and is going to smash its own head on a rock by killing its own people. It doesnt need your idiotic help to reunify its people against some threat of a phantom India on its other border.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

why are you guys wasting your times arguing with braindead zombies such as parsiwaan.
he is the ultimate embodiment of ignorance and hatred.

I know. Hes got some deep issues. He attributes his intelligence deficit to Pakistan too. Perhaps in the treaty that is drawn up when Pakistan disintegrates, we can have written in there: give Parsiwaan back his brain.