Message Of Felicitation Of The Esteemed Amir-Ul-Momineen On The Occasion Of Eid-Ul-F

[unknownprince]

One of Barakzai's posts.

"Of the country’s 34 provinces, Paktika has been the fourth-deadliest for coalition soldiers in the nearly decade-long conflict. The tribal system remains strong here, as does support for the militants.

In an Army survey in February, more than two-thirds of Paktika residents said they sympathized with the Taliban. Many others, like Mr. Khan, a leather-skinned farmer with a henna-dyed orange beard, simply feel helpless to resist them."

The Flat Earthy Society members here will defy reality once again and claim that somehow, the Paktika polling is wrong because the voters felt intimidated. Yet, when polling data supports their viewpoint in other areas of the country they are primed to advertise those results to the world, like a giddy 16 year old girl at her birthday party.

Note the NYTime reliance on a village elder asking for arms. Interestingly enough the rest of the article lays out how the various Paktika tribes utilize American firepower to destroy eachother's gains.

The bottom line is that the Army Survey provides objective data that they cannot provide a counter to that indicates the locals support, in the majority, the Afghan insurgents. How the Flat Earth Society Members here will tie the ISI into this one should be interesting to observe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/24/wo...er=rss&emc=rss

[BarakzaiAbdali]

@BarakzaiAbdali and unknownAshrafGhaljay

Unfortunately, things aren't always in black and white. Of course, Ahmed Rashid supports the US invasion of Afghanistan, that's not really a secret. However, he is also very critical of what the US is now doing there, how it is conducting its operations and how it is doing everything wrong. In fact, many journalists and experts on this war now agree that the Taliban have support at the grassroots and a lot of resistance to this continuing (and failing) American occupation even comes from ordinary people, who are unaffiliated with any of the better known Taliban networks.

So who or what must one support? The US occupation, which has failed to deliver ordinary Afghans from the war and violence that they have been seeing for the last 30 years and which has not developed anything in Afghanistan? Or the Taliban, from which ultimately, the same group will come back into power and the civilians who are fighting now will return to their fields and once again, the Afghanistan that we became so well-acquainted with from 1995 to 2001 will come into existence?

The Americans came in after 9/11 to flush out all the filth that had accumulated in Afghanistan in the last 20 (1979-2001) years (by their own doing, no less). They promised development, funding and we all believed them. In fact, if you read what the British and the Americans wrote about what intended to do there just as their invasion began, their main goal was to quickly eliminate the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and begin work on development projects (winning hearts and minds). Were they going to establish long-term bases there as they have in South Korea, Germany and Japan? Yes, of course, the US isn't a charity organization but if the US was prepared to make up for its mistakes of the past, eliminate the terrorists that it helped nurture to defeat the Soviets and help Afghanistan develop, just as it helped Germany and Japan, what would be the harm in that?

At that time, most Afghans were in favor of that American intervention in Afghanistan. Firstly, because the Taliban were vassals to Islamabad. Secondly, they were incapable of developing the country and instead, took it back a thousand years as far as human development is concerned. Thirdly, their rule was tyrannical - perhaps even worse than that of the PDPA governments of the 70s in some regards. Fourth, after 9/11, the whole world believed that the US would genuinely try to rebuild Afghanistan and given the public support for the war, huge amounts of cash would flow into Afghanistan.

In any case, the war started with the bombing of many Afghans towns and villages and by the time Afghanistan became secure, more Afghan civilians had died when compared to the casualty-count of 9/11. And then all the resources of the Western world were squandered in a useless war in Iraq. That's when they lost the Afghan people. Instead of rebuilding, the coalition forces got involved in a full-scale guerrilla war.

In any case, my point is that in both cases, the Afghan people are doomed. If the Mujahideen win, a civil war would ensue that would result in the establishment of another tyrannical theocratic regime. If the US stays, Afghans will continue to suffer because the US has become an occupier and not a liberator. It's a Catch-22 situation in which ultimately, the biggest loser is the ordinary Pashtun.

Multiple suppositions here that are morally wrong and nonevidence based, even from the Western secularist viewpoint.

Lets discuss the history first and semantics of what occupation entails later:

1) First, you make a broad statement that Afghans were in favor of the western intervention and subsequent occupation... where is your proof? Do you mean Karzai was in favor of an intervention? Sure he was. He is a part of an emigre elite, not too far off in his role from that of the Iranian elites that fled the revolution and are now beating the war drums to take Iran. Do the Iranian people on the ground want a US military intervention?

Dr. Kakar is an Afghan. He is also an anti Taliban Afghan. However, he is honest. As I noted with Dr. Kawun Kakar's statement:

"“In reality, the traditional way of life in villages has changed little by Taliban's rule. The situation of Afghans in the countryside controlled by the Taliban has improved because of increased peace and security, giving them the opportunity to rebuild after two decades of war. But this security comes at a cost. Forced recruitment of young men to fight the ever bloody war of attrition against the Northern alliance has depleted the man-power from these rural centers. In the cities and urban centers, the more modern and liberal way of life conflicts sharply with that of the Taliban's social and religious values."

http://www.institute-for-afghan-stud...ntro_kakar.htm

So your statement that the Afghans in the villages wanted the US intervention is evidenceless and is an opinion. Those who experienced little change in their way of life and were not disturbed, who had evidnece their drive to rise up against the Soviets would have no problem doing so again against the Taliban if they had wanted to. You may produce a few articles that show 1 or 2 emigre guys lamenting something or the other, but the fact of the matter remains that there is no evidence at all that the rural Afghans wanted to send a behind the back invite to the occupation forces to remove the Taliban.

2) Regarding being vassals of Islamabad, once again, a few convoys passing through Kandahar is hardly being a vassal. Here is why they came to power:

"Scheuer: We're really not in a position to push these people. Who's going to replace them? There isn't anyone less corrupt. Probably the only incorrupt people in Afghanistan are the Taliban. If you want no corruption, give the government back to the Taliban."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...714936,00.html

And here is what NATO did to the rural Pashtuns once they came:

“History tells a different story. The conflict is very complex, multi-dimensional and goes back three decades. In 2001–02 we installed a government in Kabul headed by Karzai. In doing this, we backed one side in a long civil war—the more progressive-secular and urban camp, Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras, and some Pashtuns and those who live in the north and west. But it excluded one-third of Afghans, the rural, religious, traditional camp, who are Pashtuns in the south and east—which include the Taliban—whose forerunners we backed in 1980s, against the Soviets."
http://www.thenation.com/article/157...-insider-talks

How is this being a vassal issue I addressed earlier:

" I think two concrete examples demonstrate that the Taliban are not necessarily pure ISI proxies:

The Taliban refused to recognize the durand line:

http://www.institute-for-afghan-stud...urand_line.htm

"But this is exactly the point any political observer would make. If a tribe is so cohesively entwined, how could any imaginary line divide it? But the Friday Times report also deals with other aspects of the visit. It says: “However, he (Ahmed) could not explain why it was important for the Taleban interior minister to come to Mohmand Agency all the way from Kabul. According to one malik (chieftain) of the Khoizai tribe, the Taliban expressed anger at the Mohmand sub-tribes' urge to get Pakistani identity cards. "This is our land. We will give you the (identity) cards," the malik quoted one Taliban delegation member as saying at a tea party, attended among other chieftains by Malik Fazal Manan, a former member of Pakistan's national assembly. During one of the ceremonies, the delegation also hoisted the Taliban flag at Khapakh.” It is worth mentioning that the visit had scared the Pakistani government so much so that it went ahead and arrested two tribal chieftains namely Malik Abid and Malik Naseem for interrogation and released them after 72 hours."

The second incident was the arrest of Mullah Baradar."

3) Regarding removing the filth... I have addressed this twice already. But you guys (SXE NOT included in this) appear to want to fight a mental war of attrition with me and not read what I already wrote. Please address the fact that the "filth" was a response. You make it appear as if Bin Ladin and his ilk were the original instigators and the West created them in the acute situation of the USSR war. This is ahistoric and shows that you need to think of history both pre 9/11 and and pre soviet afghan conflict.:

Here once:

"For instance, it covers up the regional great game. In now open source Operation Ajax, it was the US that utilized its CIA assetts via Kermit Roosevelt, in coordination with M16 to overturn Mossadegh in Iran. This WESTERN INTERVENTION created a ticking time bomb in the region. This in turn would lead to the chafing of the Iranian people under the brutal tyranny of the US installed Shah of Iran. When Khomenei overturned the Shah, the US responded with arming Saddam Hussein to the teeth. Saddam himself, now confirmed via Assange's wikileaks, told Ambassador Glaspie that he would concern himself with a Kuwaiti invasion should Iran goal not be realized. Baker and Co then proceeded to trump up an Iraqi invansion into the Saudi peninsula that was nonexistent. A young Afghan War veteran named Mr. Bin Ladin offered the US a chance to leave the Arabs to their own devices and defend the peninsula with a Pan Arab force. The US declined and occupied the Peninsula. This, along with the US support Israel ignited a passionate response from a subsegment of the world's Muslim population that sought to realize the Prophet Muhammad's dying statement to his future inheritors that no infidel force is to rest upon the Saudi peninsula. These events then created a ripe situation for a second super power and Islamic clash to occur. The facts are documented that they chased Bin Ladin out of Sudan into Afghanistan and from there we all know the outcome of events. The bottom line?: The nidus event is Western Interventionalism."

and here previously:

"As I have stated, I believe in treating a disease and not a symptom.

For instance, if I told you someone was sick with a terrible jarasim and the bacteria was in his blood and he had a fever. Would you only treat his fever or would you treat the bug causing his fever in the first place because it might kill him?

Suicide bombing, acts of desperation, when we examine history, usually crop up when asymmetric warfare occurs and a people feel outgunned and the odds are tremendously stacked against them. Here is an article I have cited many times:

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth...424785830.html

This is my unifying theory and proposition for you... take it or leave it... or take parts of it as you wish or leave parts of it as you wish:

We ought to look at why Mr. Bin Ladin found his way to Afghanistan. The bacteria (the USA intervention) inserted itself in the 1950s when it deposed and turned over the democratically elected government of Iran under Mossadegh. Kermit Roosevelt, a CIA higher up, was involved in this now open source Operation Ajax:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Ir...'%C3%A9tat

This in turn resulted in the installation of the brutal Shah of Iran, who was heavily support by the American Central Intelligence Agency... he brutalized his people for decades. Professor Gerade of Vanderbilt University noted that he was so much a zaleem that everyone banded behind Khomenei (from the Shiite Radicals to the Communists) to get rid of him. This in turn resulted in a US that was extremely upset with a country that was able to overturn its local hegemony. So they armed Saddam Hussein, the secular baathist to the teeth with killing machines and arms and told him to attack Iran to his heart's content. He proceeded to kill many many Iranian youngsters but could not accomplish his goal. He would go on to lament to the US ambassador April Glaspie that were his Iran goal not be realized, he would go on to claim Kuwait. This was originally debated and has been referred to as the tacit green light. However, no documentation existed to support it occuring. Until now. Assange/wikileaks has provided the public with the much sought after Glaspie memo:

Here is Harvard Professor Stephen Walts link to the memo and his discussion of the tacit greenlight:
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/...saddam_hussein

In the mean while, Jim Baker and Co created a farce, backed up by misconstrued Satellite maps, of Saddam's army supposely preparing to invade the Saudi Arabian peninsula. A young Mr. Bin Ladin, having returned from the Afghan war, felt that this was an internal Arab affair and offered the Royals the chance to solve the problems between Arabs. He was immediatly imprisoned and then had to flee Saudi Arabia (1 hour 17 minutes into the video). In retrospect, he offered the US a chance to pursue a NONINTERVENTIONIST route in the Muslim world. The Saudis went on to create a Bin Baaz fatwaa that went 100% against the last statements of the Prophet Muhammad (S) that vehemently said no non Muslim army was to sit in the holy land.

Watch 1 hour and 19 minutes when Mr. Baker starts to interview. Then watch how stupidly King Fahd responded, per Chaz Freeman's interview. Then even more ironically look at 1 hour 23 minutes in when Baker and co make the Saudis look like idiots and get charged for the war itself. Then look at what Chaz Freeman says 1 hour 24 minutes in when he notes that the debt was CONCOCTED.

House Of Saud - YouTube

[/URL]

They would go on to unceremoniously chase Mr. Bin Ladin into the Sudan and then pressurize Sudan to eject this individual who was now clearly engaged in attempting to eject the Americans from the peninsula.

You might at this point say, well Sudan got rid of him and did pretty well. Have you been watching the news? The NATO and American led intervention in Sudan has been to involve itself in southern Sudan's oil rich Christian dominant lands seceding from Sudan proper. Yet this same support is utterly lack for Kashmir, Chechnya, and Uighar Muslims.

http://non-intervention.com/751/u-s-...for-americans/

So this intervention brought Mr. Bin Ladin to the door step of Afghanistan.

So now, why should Mullah Omar have turned him over when it was THEIR INVOLVEMENT and THEIR INTERVENTION that would create the sequence of events that would lead to the genesis of Osama Bin Ladin himself?

The germ/bacterial agent here is the US interventionalism (under the guise of NATO) in the Muslim world and the symptoms of this ailment is the spate of suicide bombings and radicalism that is worsening under the NATO occupation.

The solution to this problem is for NATO to leave, the US to feel it is economically untenable to sustain its hegemony, and for the Eastern/Muslim world to reach its own equilibrium.

Here is the radical Taliban phase of American history:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/histor...ief-salem.html

When left alone to develop as a nation, without interventionalism.. the result was that the sons of these early American theocrats changed their own environs and reached a moderate point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Hawthorne

So too will the sons of these rural masses eventually reach an equilibrium all their own.

The living proof of this concept? Iran. If you watch how Iran moved toward Khatami (a liberal moderate) when the US was not saber ratteling towards Iran, but then leaned heavily rightwards toward Ahmedinjad as they felt American presence and threats ramp up in the region, you will see that nations generally progress socially when interventionalism by the empires cease."

[ScimitarXEdge]

oooh now you're using the Nytimes????

I thought you said these sources aren't to be trusted....shows how you only change faces when you can use a source for your own agenda

but you didn't read the whole article

this is what the beginning says.

TOWDABAY KALAY, Afghanistan — The American soldiers knew little about this farming village in the rugged foothills of Paktika Province in eastern Afghanistan, but they were told the Taliban moved through regularly.
Enlarge This Image

Ray Rivera/The New York Times
Amir Khan, center, a village elder of Towdabay Kalay, in Paktika Province, told American soldiers about having been shot and then treated by coalition forces in the winter of 2009.
Related

Afghan Police Seek to Stop Illicit Trade in Uniforms (April 24, 2011)
Two Schools in Afghanistan, One Complicated Situation (April 24, 2011)

The New York Times
Hamlets like Towdabay Kalay are ripe for insurgents looking for recruits and supplies.

When the soldiers, part of the First Battalion, 506th Infantry, arrived on foot one morning, hiking along terraced fields carved into the steep hillsides, they found the villagers fearful. Not just of the Taliban, but of NATO forces as well.

“We are scared of both sides,” a village elder, Mutayeb Khan, told the soldiers, expressing a litany of concerns shared by many villagers in remote parts of the country.

They worry that NATO and Afghan forces will confuse them for insurgents while they’re tending their fields or collecting wood in the hills; that the Taliban will attack them if they help, or even talk to coalition forces; that government forces will detain their young men, perhaps for years..

They don't support the Taliban because they like them; they're afraid of what the Taliban will do to them if they don't support them.


You just exposed yourself ONCE again.

[ScimitarXEdge]

No afghan fights for pakistan you moron> no afghan dances the bhangra after victories> no afghan carries the pakistani flag, and plans to hoist it at kandahar.

Of course; that's because the Taliban Organization, speaking of their leadership aren't actually Afghans, but Pakistani Slaves, they're trained to look/appear as natives to try and fool others and gain legitimacy.

This is soooo stupid, you are such an idiot. Your are out of touch, and are using the same false reasoning that is used to support the US war against Afghanistan.

So stupid that I have managed to blow every argument you present out of the water with cool, calm logic.

AFGHANS FIGHT FOR AFGHANISTAN. IS THAT CLEAR? IS IT CLEAR TO YOUR DENSE HEAD?

But Taliban (leadership/organization, not rank and file who have had their sentiments exploited) are fighting for Pakistan.

Expose this, expose that. you yourself have exposed your support for the US war against Afghanistan.

I already disproved that Pakistani Ghulam, repeating the same lie won't make it come true.

[unknownprince]

I can post several other links and reports showing the Taliban have support. This frankly is a retarded discussion with you. You live in a make belief world. I will just repost Barakzais post which you refuse to respond to. You see, I fall for your stupid topic changing schemes when you continuously fail at making a case for any of your ridiculous claims. Your a simple waste.

Again, another useless and dead end thing you do when you start making assumptions, and changing the topic when you have no argument. Obviously, I think the media is biased, but that does not mean they never post credible, hard to refute facts.

[unknownprince]

Here Scimitar, I say the same, and agree with Barakzai's assessment 100% because it includes FACTS/ FACTS, not the myths you propagate or hallucinate.

Multiple suppositions here that are morally wrong and nonevidence based, even from the Western secularist viewpoint.

Lets discuss the history first and semantics of what occupation entails later:

1) First, you make a broad statement that Afghans were in favor of the western intervention and subsequent occupation... where is your proof? Do you mean Karzai was in favor of an intervention? Sure he was. He is a part of an emigre elite, not too far off in his role from that of the Iranian elites that fled the revolution and are now beating the war drums to take Iran. Do the Iranian people on the ground want a US military intervention?

Dr. Kakar is an Afghan. He is also an anti Taliban Afghan. However, he is honest. As I noted with Dr. Kawun Kakar's statement:

"“In reality, the traditional way of life in villages has changed little by Taliban's rule. The situation of Afghans in the countryside controlled by the Taliban has improved because of increased peace and security, giving them the opportunity to rebuild after two decades of war. But this security comes at a cost. Forced recruitment of young men to fight the ever bloody war of attrition against the Northern alliance has depleted the man-power from these rural centers. In the cities and urban centers, the more modern and liberal way of life conflicts sharply with that of the Taliban's social and religious values."

http://www.institute-for-afghan-stud...ntro_kakar.htm

So your statement that the Afghans in the villages wanted the US intervention is evidenceless and is an opinion. Those who experienced little change in their way of life and were not disturbed, who had evidnece their drive to rise up against the Soviets would have no problem doing so again against the Taliban if they had wanted to. You may produce a few articles that show 1 or 2 emigre guys lamenting something or the other, but the fact of the matter remains that there is no evidence at all that the rural Afghans wanted to send a behind the back invite to the occupation forces to remove the Taliban.

2) Regarding being vassals of Islamabad, once again, a few convoys passing through Kandahar is hardly being a vassal. Here is why they came to power:

"Scheuer: We're really not in a position to push these people. Who's going to replace them? There isn't anyone less corrupt. Probably the only incorrupt people in Afghanistan are the Taliban. If you want no corruption, give the government back to the Taliban."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...714936,00.html

And here is what NATO did to the rural Pashtuns once they came:

“History tells a different story. The conflict is very complex, multi-dimensional and goes back three decades. In 2001–02 we installed a government in Kabul headed by Karzai. In doing this, we backed one side in a long civil war—the more progressive-secular and urban camp, Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazaras, and some Pashtuns and those who live in the north and west. But it excluded one-third of Afghans, the rural, religious, traditional camp, who are Pashtuns in the south and east—which include the Taliban—whose forerunners we backed in 1980s, against the Soviets."
http://www.thenation.com/article/157...-insider-talks

How is this being a vassal issue I addressed earlier:

" I think two concrete examples demonstrate that the Taliban are not necessarily pure ISI proxies:

The Taliban refused to recognize the durand line:

http://www.institute-for-afghan-stud...urand_line.htm

"But this is exactly the point any political observer would make. If a tribe is so cohesively entwined, how could any imaginary line divide it? But the Friday Times report also deals with other aspects of the visit. It says: “However, he (Ahmed) could not explain why it was important for the Taleban interior minister to come to Mohmand Agency all the way from Kabul. According to one malik (chieftain) of the Khoizai tribe, the Taliban expressed anger at the Mohmand sub-tribes' urge to get Pakistani identity cards. "This is our land. We will give you the (identity) cards," the malik quoted one Taliban delegation member as saying at a tea party, attended among other chieftains by Malik Fazal Manan, a former member of Pakistan's national assembly. During one of the ceremonies, the delegation also hoisted the Taliban flag at Khapakh.” It is worth mentioning that the visit had scared the Pakistani government so much so that it went ahead and arrested two tribal chieftains namely Malik Abid and Malik Naseem for interrogation and released them after 72 hours."

The second incident was the arrest of Mullah Baradar."

3) Regarding removing the filth... I have addressed this twice already. But you guys (SXE NOT included in this) appear to want to fight a mental war of attrition with me and not read what I already wrote. Please address the fact that the "filth" was a response. You make it appear as if Bin Ladin and his ilk were the original instigators and the West created them in the acute situation of the USSR war. This is ahistoric and shows that you need to think of history both pre 9/11 and and pre soviet afghan conflict.:

Here once:

"For instance, it covers up the regional great game. In now open source Operation Ajax, it was the US that utilized its CIA assetts via Kermit Roosevelt, in coordination with M16 to overturn Mossadegh in Iran. This WESTERN INTERVENTION created a ticking time bomb in the region. This in turn would lead to the chafing of the Iranian people under the brutal tyranny of the US installed Shah of Iran. When Khomenei overturned the Shah, the US responded with arming Saddam Hussein to the teeth. Saddam himself, now confirmed via Assange's wikileaks, told Ambassador Glaspie that he would concern himself with a Kuwaiti invasion should Iran goal not be realized. Baker and Co then proceeded to trump up an Iraqi invansion into the Saudi peninsula that was nonexistent. A young Afghan War veteran named Mr. Bin Ladin offered the US a chance to leave the Arabs to their own devices and defend the peninsula with a Pan Arab force. The US declined and occupied the Peninsula. This, along with the US support Israel ignited a passionate response from a subsegment of the world's Muslim population that sought to realize the Prophet Muhammad's dying statement to his future inheritors that no infidel force is to rest upon the Saudi peninsula. These events then created a ripe situation for a second super power and Islamic clash to occur. The facts are documented that they chased Bin Ladin out of Sudan into Afghanistan and from there we all know the outcome of events. The bottom line?: The nidus event is Western Interventionalism."

and here previously:

"As I have stated, I believe in treating a disease and not a symptom.

For instance, if I told you someone was sick with a terrible jarasim and the bacteria was in his blood and he had a fever. Would you only treat his fever or would you treat the bug causing his fever in the first place because it might kill him?

Suicide bombing, acts of desperation, when we examine history, usually crop up when asymmetric warfare occurs and a people feel outgunned and the odds are tremendously stacked against them. Here is an article I have cited many times:

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth...424785830.html

This is my unifying theory and proposition for you... take it or leave it... or take parts of it as you wish or leave parts of it as you wish:

We ought to look at why Mr. Bin Ladin found his way to Afghanistan. The bacteria (the USA intervention) inserted itself in the 1950s when it deposed and turned over the democratically elected government of Iran under Mossadegh. Kermit Roosevelt, a CIA higher up, was involved in this now open source Operation Ajax:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Ir...'%C3%A9tat

This in turn resulted in the installation of the brutal Shah of Iran, who was heavily support by the American Central Intelligence Agency... he brutalized his people for decades. Professor Gerade of Vanderbilt University noted that he was so much a zaleem that everyone banded behind Khomenei (from the Shiite Radicals to the Communists) to get rid of him. This in turn resulted in a US that was extremely upset with a country that was able to overturn its local hegemony. So they armed Saddam Hussein, the secular baathist to the teeth with killing machines and arms and told him to attack Iran to his heart's content. He proceeded to kill many many Iranian youngsters but could not accomplish his goal. He would go on to lament to the US ambassador April Glaspie that were his Iran goal not be realized, he would go on to claim Kuwait. This was originally debated and has been referred to as the tacit green light. However, no documentation existed to support it occuring. Until now. Assange/wikileaks has provided the public with the much sought after Glaspie memo:

Here is Harvard Professor Stephen Walts link to the memo and his discussion of the tacit greenlight:
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/...saddam_hussein

In the mean while, Jim Baker and Co created a farce, backed up by misconstrued Satellite maps, of Saddam's army supposely preparing to invade the Saudi Arabian peninsula. A young Mr. Bin Ladin, having returned from the Afghan war, felt that this was an internal Arab affair and offered the Royals the chance to solve the problems between Arabs. He was immediatly imprisoned and then had to flee Saudi Arabia (1 hour 17 minutes into the video). In retrospect, he offered the US a chance to pursue a NONINTERVENTIONIST route in the Muslim world. The Saudis went on to create a Bin Baaz fatwaa that went 100% against the last statements of the Prophet Muhammad (S) that vehemently said no non Muslim army was to sit in the holy land.

Watch 1 hour and 19 minutes when Mr. Baker starts to interview. Then watch how stupidly King Fahd responded, per Chaz Freeman's interview. Then even more ironically look at 1 hour 23 minutes in when Baker and co make the Saudis look like idiots and get charged for the war itself. Then look at what Chaz Freeman says 1 hour 24 minutes in when he notes that the debt was CONCOCTED.

House Of Saud - YouTube

[/URL]

They would go on to unceremoniously chase Mr. Bin Ladin into the Sudan and then pressurize Sudan to eject this individual who was now clearly engaged in attempting to eject the Americans from the peninsula.

You might at this point say, well Sudan got rid of him and did pretty well. Have you been watching the news? The NATO and American led intervention in Sudan has been to involve itself in southern Sudan's oil rich Christian dominant lands seceding from Sudan proper. Yet this same support is utterly lack for Kashmir, Chechnya, and Uighar Muslims.

http://non-intervention.com/751/u-s-...for-americans/

So this intervention brought Mr. Bin Ladin to the door step of Afghanistan.

So now, why should Mullah Omar have turned him over when it was THEIR INVOLVEMENT and THEIR INTERVENTION that would create the sequence of events that would lead to the genesis of Osama Bin Ladin himself?

The germ/bacterial agent here is the US interventionalism (under the guise of NATO) in the Muslim world and the symptoms of this ailment is the spate of suicide bombings and radicalism that is worsening under the NATO occupation.

The solution to this problem is for NATO to leave, the US to feel it is economically untenable to sustain its hegemony, and for the Eastern/Muslim world to reach its own equilibrium.

Here is the radical Taliban phase of American history:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/histor...ief-salem.html

When left alone to develop as a nation, without interventionalism.. the result was that the sons of these early American theocrats changed their own environs and reached a moderate point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Hawthorne

So too will the sons of these rural masses eventually reach an equilibrium all their own.

The living proof of this concept? Iran. If you watch how Iran moved toward Khatami (a liberal moderate) when the US was not saber ratteling towards Iran, but then leaned heavily rightwards toward Ahmedinjad as they felt American presence and threats ramp up in the region, you will see that nations generally progress socially when interventionalism by the empires cease."

[ScimitarXEdge]

This is changing, not out of new found feeling of independence with the Pakistan puppets, but mostly because the US has sunk. Yes, you will be unemployed for a long time.


Hekmatyar urges Pakistan, Iran to end US support


Hekmatyar urges Pakistan, Iran to end US support

Saturday, September 03, 2011






PESHAWAR: Former Afghan prime minister Engineer Gulbadin Hekmatyar has urged Pakistan and Iran to stop supporting Americans against Afghan nation.

In his message issued on Eidul Fitr, he said the United States had also prepared the same plan for Pakistan and Iran like that of Afghanistan and Iraq. Governments of Pakistan and Iran should stop searching their own benefits in the blood of Afghans, Hekmatyar, who is chief of Hizeb-e-Islami, said. The Afghan resistance leader rejected the formation of peace commission, saying the withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan was the only solution to Afghan crisis.

Hehmatyar observed the recently formed peace commission was making hollow slogans and was trying to create groups within Mujahideen on the basis of dollars, but only the fools could be deceived as the American were searching honourable way out from Afghanistan.

Without naming anybody, he said some (of leaders) within the commission had invited American to attack Afghanistan and had also asked Iran to control Hirat, Mazar and Takhar and later handed over it to them. The same forces, he said had control over the Afghan army and police, and were fighting under American command against Afghan nation. He said majority of the Afghan nation had not participated in Afghan elections, which was a drama staged by the Americans to bring those people in power, who had already sold their loyalties. He said Americans had no other choice expect withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Hezb I Islami are against the Taliban numbnuts

You have done two things

#1.) You proved that you don't need to support the Taliban to be Anti Imperialism.

#2.) You showed there exists forces in Afghanistan who oppose the Talibs and Imperialists

The Hindu : News : Afghan Taliban seize villages from other militants

The Taliban gained control of several villages in northeastern Afghanistan on Monday after two days of gunbattles with another Islamist group that ended when nearly 70 of the rival militants retreated and surrendered to government forces nearby, officials said.

The fierce fighting, which left at least 50 dead from both sides, was a turf war between the Taliban and insurgent allies Hezb—e—Islami - loyal to regional warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar -

[ScimitarXEdge]

Here Scimitar, I say the same, and agree with Barakzai's assessment 100% because it includes FACTS/ FACTS, not the myths you propagate or hallucinate.

you just blindly support what BarakzaiAbdali says because you don't have a leg to stand on after being pretty much expose

you are even admittedly from Pakistan, please stay there.

[unknownprince]

lol Scimitar, you have not broken any of my arguments at all. You just made a fool out of yourself. Calm??

Calm is the person who can state facts, and not hallucinations.

I think you have been sniffing rocks? Mullah Omar does not exist. Do you think he is something like the boogeyman?

Dude, you are stupid.

[ScimitarXEdge]

I can post several other links and reports showing the Taliban have support. This frankly is a retarded discussion with you. You live in a make belief world. I will just repost Barakzais post which you refuse to respond to. You see, I fall for your stupid topic changing schemes when you continuously fail at making a case for any of your ridiculous claims. Your a simple waste.

Again, another useless and dead end thing you do when you start making assumptions, and changing the topic when you have no argument. Obviously, I think the media is biased, but that does not mean they never post credible, hard to refute facts.

Yeah and as the SAME article ...THE SAME SOURCES that you use show, the only reason they support them if because the Taliban are threatening them with harm

not exactly heartfelt LOL

[unknownprince]

you just blindly support what BarakzaiAbdali says because you don't have a leg to stand on after being pretty much expose

you are even admittedly from Pakistan, please stay there.

haha lol, I am from Pakistan.

thank you, you finally showed your stupidity.

You follow me around because I fall for your stupid tactics of topic changing which you do when you fail.

Respond to Barakzai. He is more refined and polite than me. Its hard for you to escape from answering those posts, isn't it?

[ScimitarXEdge]

lol Scimitar, you have not broken any of my arguments at all. You just made a fool out of yourself. Calm??

Calm is the person who can state facts, and not hallucinations.

I think you have been sniffing rocks? Mullah Omar does not exist. Do you think he is something like the boogeyman?

Dude, you are stupid.

Calm is the person who states facts? Very true; because so far I've even used your own sources to debunk everything you said.

You go haywire and start spamming and repeating the same fallacy which was already previously exposed as being logically inconsistent because you're everything BUT calm.

As for the existence of Mullah Umar, I don't know whether he exists or not, but the fact that these are the only existing pics alleged Mullah Umar are men who look very little alike, and that barely any existing Taliban member has actually met Mullah Umar is pretty suspcious.

again you attempt to misrepresent my statements out of desperate propaganda tactics of Pakistani Slaves.

[unknownprince]

You have not debunked anything I said

I already said it matters not if aliens from Mars support the Afghans, and have common interests. No Afghan who is fighting cares if aliens have common interests with them for the time being.

You just have made a fool out of yourself.

[ScimitarXEdge]

haha lol, I am from Pakistan.

thank you, you finally showed your stupidity.

You follow me around because I fall for your stupid tactics of topic changing which you do when you fail.

Respond to Barakzai. He is more refined and polite than me. Its hard for you to escape from answering those posts, isn't it?

I already responded to him; his debate is between Levanaye Zalmay and he now.

[ScimitarXEdge]

You have not debunked anything I said

I already said it matters not if aliens from Mars support the Afghans, and have common interests. No Afghan who is fighting cares if aliens have common interests with them for the time being.

You just have made a fool out of yourself.

You're reverting back to the same fallacious set of premises; the ISI supporting Taliban WHILE being incahoots with the Americans; the conditions make the credibility of the Taliban resistance nihil; why would the Taiban ally with an entity which is patronizing the very thing they claim is invading and violating the sovereignty of their country?

The only logically sensible answer is that the Taliban are serving Pakistani interests.