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

[BarakzaiAbdali]

About this purported endorsement of Michael S. by the supposed
terrorist leader - I highly question that.

Why? It doesn't ring true !

Perhaps a fake actor playing the role of this Osama MAY have said
something like that.
But let's be realistic.
If you are a terrorist leader on the run, you don't have time to
read over books about yourself, even assuming you are Mr Vanity
You have other considerations, namely survival.

A subordinate COULD read the book and make a report to his chief.

But I sort of doubt that.

First of all, i believe that he was already dead and there have been
doubles used in making all these tapes and videos.

So an Israeli agent may have a great joke in making such a solemn pronouncement.
But the real Osama ? I doubt that.

That makes no sense because when you read Imperial Hubris it advocates ending the war and has been criticized by neocons and the like as portraying the Muslims in a positive light. The neocons like Frum are ardently against it being read.

The section on Israel details the issues with the USS Liberty affair and documents the extreme damage the relationship of the US with Israel.

His messages have been consistent.

If you can show me, within Imperial Hubris's text where a conspiracy monger or an Israeli agent can find benefit for their interests then I would be willing to say you have a point.

Regarding Mr. Bin Ladin being dead before or after, its a cyclical message regardless because taking the "fake OBL" and making him refer to Scheuer's book does nothing for their cause.

Advocating not reading the other sides views is nearly equal and opposite to what they say about our learned people.

[Catya Sher]

A Tale of 2 Michaels

About Michael S - I personally feel suspicious of any party who
would be interviewed on ANY major news outlet.

There HAS to be some "deal" behind the scenes.
Otherwise he will never be on there. Not in this Zionist-controlled
day and age !
He must have agreed to never bring up Israel, first.
Second, it's possible he is being "run" too as a way to
diffuse anger by the FEW Americans who are knowledgeable enough
to take an active interest in American foreign policy toward Afghanistan, Iraq.
Sort of like the "Tea Party" is CONTROLLED OPPOSITION.
Why don't THEY bring up the most important points?

Anyone who is CLEAR -minded knows WHICH foreign country is the problem for
America.
No Muslim country but Israel threatens the US. And has for every year of its existence [remember the USS Liberty, the Lavon Affair, etc].

I just picked up my old copy of the book by Michael Ledeen
who is and was a major mover in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
I met him once, in fact, and he was quite nice in person.
But the fact is: he and so many others like him who forge our policies
ARE like Double Agents for Israel !

If it weren't for him especially and his cronies, the US would never
have ventured to either of these countries.

That's how dangerous a FEW people are.

They are considered by Americans EXPERTS just because they wrote one book
on a country!
This one was called Debacle, about the fall of the Shah.
I noted looking at it that he doesn't bother to capitalize the word Shah
but peddles a line that Palestinians trained by the Soviets were behind the Iranian
Revolution.

The message is: stick with Israel against those awful Palestinians who are supported by Communists.

Once established in neo-con circles, he never had to justify anything again.
Just screech :
Israel is going to suffer ! Israel may be eliminated !
to get every person on his side.

So how is it that this Michael S. is able to say PART of the truth but not
tell us how insidious Mossad's operations are against America ?
As a former CIA officer, Michael S must know that better than most.

So that's one part of why I turn up my nose at him [said nicely!]

[BarakzaiAbdali]

A Tale of 2 Michaels

About Michael S - I personally feel suspicious of any party who
would be interviewed on ANY major news outlet.

There HAS to be some "deal" behind the scenes.
Otherwise he will never be on there. Not in this Zionist-controlled
day and age !
He must have agreed to never bring up Israel, first.
Second, it's possible he is being "run" too as a way to
diffuse anger by the FEW Americans who are knowledgeable enough
to take an active interest in American foreign policy toward Afghanistan, Iraq.
Sort of like the "Tea Party" is CONTROLLED OPPOSITION.
Why don't THEY bring up the most important points?

Anyone who is CLEAR -minded knows WHICH foreign country is the problem for
America.
No Muslim country but Israel threatens the US. And has for every year of its existence [remember the USS Liberty, the Lavon Affair, etc].

I just picked up my old copy of the book by Michael Ledeen
who is and was a major mover in the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
I met him once, in fact, and he was quite nice in person.
But the fact is: he and so many others like him who forge our policies
ARE like Double Agents for Israel !

If it weren't for him especially and his cronies, the US would never
have ventured to either of these countries.

That's how dangerous a FEW people are.

They are considered by Americans EXPERTS just because they wrote one book
on a country!
This one was called Debacle, about the fall of the Shah.
I noted looking at it that he doesn't bother to capitalize the word Shah
but peddles a line that Palestinians trained by the Soviets were behind the Iranian
Revolution.

The message is: stick with Israel against those awful Palestinians who are supported by Communists.

Once established in neo-con circles, he never had to justify anything again.
Just screech :
Israel is going to suffer ! Israel may be eliminated !
to get every person on his side.

So how is it that this Michael S. is able to say PART of the truth but not
tell us how insidious Mossad's operations are against America ?
As a former CIA officer, Michael S must know that better than most.

So that's one part of why I turn up my nose at him [said nicely!]

Catya, if you stop for a second and actually watched the Bill Maher piece above you would have seen that he heavily berates Israel. Watch it and then get back to me. Here it is again for your ease of access:

Bill Maher interviews Michael Scheuer - YouTube

Regarding covert Israeli ops, he has clearly written about it and covert Israeili ops here:

http://antiwar.com/scheuer/?articleid=8827

And has written about Mossad ops as well.

Being a Muslim means judging quality fairly as well. If you watch that first video and somehow read that he supports Israeil covertly, then youll have to furnish proof. In reality, it is a jewish tradition to pass judgement on all things not from the chosen people... Muslims are designated to be judges of character equally for all people but trust that NonMuslim forces shall never have their best interests at heart should it come down to a choice between their own interests and that of the Muslims.

[Catya Sher]

It's too bad one can't access the spiritual records and SEE whether
this Pretend-Osama said such a non-characteristic thing.

You don't see how in this Big Game, both sides are part of the SAME TEAM.
But they fight each other [democrats - republicans too]
as much as permitted under the very very limited framework allowed.

Why was it that when one Texas woman raised a question about this Sept event
having been suspicous, she was immediately shoved from the race after being
made to apologize?

There is NO free speech in this country, at least in public
Books that are given wide distribution are approved.
If not, they will be put out by some small publisher and
never be heard of except by a few.

There is a huge MACHINE which steers opinion down the
required avenues.

As I said in an earlier thread, Michael S. is not really that far outside
the usual. Has he questioned the supposed terrorist attacks of Sept
1o years back ?

I bet not, because his career as a Bin Laden Analyst has been made on
the assumption that they were 1 ) REAL
2 ) perpetrated by some unknown guy sitting in a CAVE
as if any sane person would believe that !
By the way again speaking of asking people in the same region
what THEY think - nearly all said, I believe, that there is NO WAY
in the WORLD that this Osama did that.
They use another function which is lacking in societies bombarded
by gross movies, disgusting artwork, etc.
They use COMMON SENSE / INSTINCT FOR TRUTH

So If Michael S didn't debunk the Sept events, I wouldn't open a page of his book !

I doubt he did, for his name is made by being a person who followed up
on this [FAKE!] organization, Al - Q.

You think he would REALLY let the Agency's secrets out ?

You know that every book by a former agent or officer
is vetted by a very picky process.

So there simply can not be anything earth-shattering permitted
to be told to the public in any book of his.
His books HAVE to still meet requirements of The Party Line.
They may offer more insights than the run of the mill.

But why waste one's precious life on gathering information which
is probably WRONG, DEAD WRONG, anyway ?

The only book I read on this topic was called "TheLooming Tower"
It was well written.
But if the Towers were NOT shattered by an Arab organization,
then what's the point of drinking in a lot of refuse ?

We all need TRUTH, 1000 percent truth !

There is so much scientific evidence that there was a mini-nuke
set off that it's not even useful to argue about it anymore.

[Catya Sher]

Another important point which does not pertain to Michael S. himself, but to
the CIA is that the CIA of THIS era
is NOT the CIA of past eras !

The type of person admitted to work for the Agency is very low-caliber.

Back in its youth, the CIA attracted TRULY "the best and the brightest".

Over the decades, the quality of personnel slipped.

This is my opinion, because i've read a lot about this topic over some decades.

Today a CIA spokeswoman OPENLY stated that the CIA
RECRUITS
HOMOSEXUALS - !!
Now you personally Barakzai may not care.

But this to me is an outrage.

I would never trust a homosexual about anything, but especially
not in such a delicate area as national security.

My feeling is that the staff of the CIA are at best middling these days
and at worst, really awful people ! In various ways.
Some are evil people wanting to go beat up on defenceless Afghans,
some are perverts, some are loony.

One cannot trust what any of these people are saying or doing.

It's not the Reagan era, and even then there was a lot of
bumbling, vanity [the CIA bragged about how great it was supplying the
Afghan resistance, but this would be a fascinating area to research to determine the truth].

I am saying this to hopefully open up eyes that if a retired intelligence officer
shows up on a TV program, or writes an article in a major news outlet,
he or she will not likely be such a respectable person
as he or she may have been in past decades.

Now it's a cottage industry: work for CIA or other defense agency,
retire
write memoirs
go on talk shows - those pitiful things ! -
rest on your laurels

At the end of their lives, what do they have to show?
They participated in a lot of COVER-UP, releasing
perhaps little nuggets of truth amidst many lies or falsifications.

What will Allah [swt] have to say about what they did?

Where will they end up, for catering to or acting as slave of
the Devil ?!

Nowhere very good.

Better to be UNKNOWN, and stay with the highest and best truth
than sell one's soul for a dime or two to make a name for themselves, as nearly all these commentators,
journalists, analysts, government officials who participate in the current very controlled setup
have done.

[faye]

the cia is outsourced to private companies.
osama initially denied doing 9/11 in an interview that was published in a newspaper. a very good interview too. he stated words to the effect, that america needs to look for the perpetrators of 9/11, within america.
apparently videos were handed to the american government by rita katz, who is an iraqi/israeli, who has her own company, of 2 people. she claims to be monitoring terrorist websites and produces supposed information on what the terrorists are thinking and planning, plus these osama videos.
i'm with catya on this, as far as scepticism about obd and the 9/11.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Salamoona,

I think I agree with you that even a liar's words, whether it be Hitchens, Scheuer, Rashid, Zakaria can have modicums of truth. I myself have cited Rashid on several occasions. I think that some of his information is utilizable, but he is no hero by any means, nor does he walk into the discussion agendaless. I will explain to you just why I think Scheuer, despite his admitted blood thirst, is still a reasonably valid source compared to Rashid, from which to derive a view of what policy is, and what policy ought to be.

sure but to paint Ahmed Rashid as a "war hawk" because he said that rather than turning things over to warlords it would be better than the international community if it was sincere would rather help build an independent Afghanistan, even the Taliban were attempting to portray themselves as reaching out to the International Community.

Regarding the Huffington Post article, I think Michael Hughes's assessment is an honest one. He spoke to Rashid directly and has no vested interest in debunking, maligning, or undoing Rashid.

He wasn't assessing anything from what I could tell, he was interviewing Ahmed Rashid. What struck me about what you quoted was that it was a half quote or partial quote. When examining the full quote a whole new context emerged. He wasn't so much advocating American predominance, but rather that if America was doing its job sincerely it would build up the Government rather than outsourcing to warlords.

To the contrary, he is promoting Rashid's importance. By your standards, pretty much everything we have by everyone is second hand knowledge. We also have not heard the Taliban's shuraas own words regarding Pakistani power projection through them, but you are still assuming that this is their objective.

we however have Taliban members who directly confess to the Pakistani Involvement on even the Command stucture of operations. That says a lot.

And furthermore going back to context, Saying Ahmed Rashid help fuel the Bush doctrine is a bit different than Pakistan giving direct commands to the Taliban. One is purely a theoretic connection, the other is something dealing with concrete variables

For instance, even with the wikileaks post, we have a 4rd hand report from US diplomats that came from US intelligence, that heard from NDS services that a meeting took place between Hamid Gul and Taliban assassins. So if, in a defense of Rashid, we demand his own words, then we ought to give each of these parties the same respect, including the neocons.

The comparison is faulty on logic scale. Since one deals with actual events, and other with perceptions. You and others PERCEIVE Ahmed Rashid's writings as fueling the Bush doctrine, and that's where the issue of Ahmed Rashid's own beliefs become relevant. Nothing he's said could be a smoking gun for promoting Imperialism, perhaps more frustration against the Pakistani ISI more than anything.

This is an example of false analogy.

Moreover, the neocon mantra of spreading democracy is clearly endorsed by Rashid here:

Wahhabis have a Mantra of spreading Tawhid, Sufis also have a mantra of spreading Tawhid, but the Wahhabis are enemies of Sufis.

THis is a typical "Hitler was a vegetarian so vegetarianism is wrong" fallacy

Merely because Ahmed Rashid advocates democracy is not logically equivalent to Neoimperialism working under the pretext of some perverse crusade for freedom and democracy.

This is a fallacy of the Reductio Ad-Absurdium form of "Guilt by Association" fallacy.

"Ahmed Rashid: I think every country should have the chance of building a ... Democracy is still the best possible system that we have."

He supplements this by terming the Loya Jirga as being a more legitimate process here:

"AHMED RASHID: Well, this is a country that is coming out of 25 years of war, and I think in choosing the delegates to the loya jirga and the loya jirga itself, there was an element of manipulation — by the warlords, by the government — but there was also a very legitimate process going on. If you saw the role that the women played in that for the first time, many of those women were there — were chosen in fact to be there, rather than being elected — they were very outspoken. Many of the delegates were very outspoken. Rafiq Shahir was opposing the warlord of Herat — Ismail Khan — and spoke up very strongly about him and received a lot of support. So yes, there was corruption, there was manipulation, but at the same time it was a legitimate process."

He's wrong about the nature of the Loya Jirga and claimming it is legitimate; but still not a smoking gun that he's a war hawk

Now this is a War-Hawk

What Should Obama Do Next On Iran? - National Security Experts

In addition, and more practically, the option should be taken off the table vis-à-vis Iran because we have a military that cannot win a war. The common wisdom is that the politicians are to blame for preventing the generals from doing their job; that is, killing the enemy and, as needed, its civilian supporters until each is convinced it is irrefutably defeated

Michael Scheuer advocating massacring Afghan civilians (take note Ashraf)


This is Ahmed Rashid's statements
Ahmed Rashid Interview | The Progressive

We should remember that the Pashtuns are the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan. Of course, many of them did support the Taliban. But you cannot equate all Pashtuns with the Taliban. There has to be a better ethnic representation in all areas of government. This is the biggest issue that Karzai is facing.

There is also the issue of the continuing threats posed by the warlords. The fact is, they are defying Kabul. They're not accepting its authority, they're trying to keep their fiefdoms. They're raising their own revenues and maintaining their own armies.

Not quite war hawking; but we've come a long way from the original objective, the ISI-Taliban nexus, it is confirmed from every angle, even outside of Ahmed Rashid.

Then here, in his own words, are his continued support for American presence:

What you consider his support for American presence is rather rejecting Pakistani manipulaion vis a vis "the Taliban"

Who is he to make this sort of statement on behalf of the Afghan people?

well lets say I agree with you on that point, then similarly who are the Taliban to do such things? You Quote Dr. Kakar on how the Taliban were initially accepted on the grounds that they didn't alter the mainline Pashtun life; but that was initially, eventually they banned many predominant Pashtun practices, such as walwar and other such acts. Which is valid in itself from an Islamic standpoint.

confirmed by Sayyid Rahmatullah Hashemi.

Truth about Taliban & Buddha statues

I can see some Afghans living here, and they will agree with me, that in the rural areas of Afghanistan, women were used as animals. They were SOLD actually. The first thing we have done is to give the self-determination to women, and it happened not in the history of Afghanistan.

So to say the Taliban were not dictating to the locals something against their local customs is absurd by their own admission; even if we agree.

It wasn't the Taliban banning these things that was the problem it was everything else they did that became an issue. Ironically it was those things that garnered their support INITIALLY.

He goes on to urge the removal of Khan in Herat, which I think is idiotic when you compare Ismail Khan to the other fools:

I agree, but this doesn't discredit his other valid points about the nefarious nature of the Pakistani -ISI- Taliban connection

[ScimitarXEdge]

Mike Sheuer is that brand of patriot and that reluctant soldier that American truly needs. Why else would he endorse Dr. Paul? Dr. Scheuer is not out looking for enemies.

This man is 100 times more war hawkish than you claim Ahmed Rashid is

in addition, and more practically, the option should be taken off the table vis-à-vis Iran because we have a military that cannot win a war. The common wisdom is that the politicians are to blame for preventing the generals from doing their job; that is, killing the enemy and, as needed, its civilian supporters until each is convinced it is irrefutably defeated. I begin to think, however, that the common wisdom is only partially correct. Our bipartisan political leadership surely is pathetic when it comes to war-making, but the U.S. general officer corps -- save for a few Marine generals -- is today chockfull of bureaucrats, nation-builders, and wanna-be social scientists.

What is obvious is Scheuer's vantage point isnt of a reluctant soldier, but rather a soldier fed up that his upper ranks dont have the balls to man up and exterminate the enemy and anyone loosely tied to the enemy with merciless wrath,

(Take heed Ashraf, this is the Michael Scheuer your disgusting Pakistani Slave self were blindly praising, another example of how blindly you attach yourself to ANYONE or anything you can use to serve Pakistan.)

[unknownprince]

Dr. Schuers website Michael Scheuer Non-Intervention.com

Feeling stupid yet?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

This man is 100 times more war hawkish than you claim Ahmed Rashid is



What is obvious is Scheuer's vantage point isnt of a reluctant soldier, but rather a soldier fed up that his upper ranks dont have the balls to man up and exterminate the enemy and anyone loosely tied to the enemy with merciless wrath,

(Take heed Ashraf, this is the Michael Scheuer your disgusting Pakistani Slave self were blindly praising, another example of how blindly you attach yourself to ANYONE or anything you can use to serve Pakistan.)

Once again, Scheuer is placing a conditional clause on the use of force. He aptly notes that wars of attrition destroy empires and super powers rather than sustains them. His preferred strategy, that he has written extensively about, is to divest and not prop up tyrannies. He believes this approach violates America's fabric ... you would be hard pressed to win Ron Paul's endorsement if you were blood thirsty, wanting to kill innocents solely for the sake of doing so. His second point is spot on... that is the only way America can win this war with the Islamic world if it chooses to stay and continue doing what it does.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I dont think SXE is stupid, but I do think that the name noninterventionism says it all. I mean SXE, its like having an oncologist tell you that you can just beat cancer with excision alone... you gotta follow through with chemo; otherwise you have not won. Or for that matter, its like saying you treat a bacterial illness with Tylenol..doesnt make sense. If you were an advisor to the Americans, take yourself out of your context, what would your advice be if the President said, SXE we are NOT leaving, we are going to stay...

I think he did the most moral thing when he resigned after the 9/11 commission report white washed the whole issue of why the Muslim world attacked the West. His being fired from Jamestown Foundation after speaking out against Israel really shows his moral fibre.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Dr. Schuers website Michael Scheuer Non-Intervention.com

Feeling stupid yet?

No, because having a website called "non-intervention" doesn't mean he doesn't believe that if America is going to fight a war that they shouldn't go half way.

you just committed another logical fallacy.

The Logical Fallacies: Non-Sequitur

Non-Sequitur

The term non sequitur literally means "it does not follow". In this section we describe fallacies which occur as a consequence of invalid arguments. The following fallacies are non sequit

congratulations you're just racking up mental handicap.

[ScimitarXEdge]

I dont think SXE is stupid, but I do think that the name noninterventionism says it all. I mean SXE, its like having an oncologist tell you that you can just beat cancer with excision alone... you gotta follow through with chemo; otherwise you have not won. Or for that matter, its like saying you treat a bacterial illness with Tylenol..doesnt make sense. If you were an advisor to the Americans, take yourself out of your context, what would your advice be if the President said, SXE we are NOT leaving, we are going to stay...

I think he did the most moral thing when he resigned after the 9/11 commission report white washed the whole issue of why the Muslim world attacked the West. His being fired from Jamestown Foundation after speaking out against Israel really shows his moral fibre.

Exactly so his "Non-intervention" is only in context to what he perceives as American Military being unwilling to do a thorough job......this does not mean he does not support a full scale assault on the Taliban because obviously if that was being done that's what he's advocating.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

This man is 100 times more war hawkish than you claim Ahmed Rashid is



What is obvious is Scheuer's vantage point isnt of a reluctant soldier, but rather a soldier fed up that his upper ranks dont have the balls to man up and exterminate the enemy and anyone loosely tied to the enemy with merciless wrath,

(Take heed Ashraf, this is the Michael Scheuer your disgusting Pakistani Slave self were blindly praising, another example of how blindly you attach yourself to ANYONE or anything you can use to serve Pakistan.)

Also, regarding options on the ground, I have heard both you and Admin Khan, respectable folks, lament the fact that the public sees two options Karzai vs the Taliban. Some logical questions that follow:

1) Who are the other options? Everyone that is offered as an option that is against Western presence is coined as an ISI stooge by the war hawks and the Pashtun Nationalist Chicken Hawks. Their cop out approach is: wait the West out... let them build institutions and then they will leave.

2) Pakistan also supposedly backed Hekmetyaar and provided Abdul Azzam with routes for his Arab militia into Afghanistan. The forward operating base of Pakistani land, in and of itself might amount to an obvious support. Abdul Azzam had his own objectives but still did not raise a fuss about Pakistan being the middle man in all of this either.

3) Rashid also notes that TTP is clearly affiliated and has sworn loyalty to Omar. He also notes that this arm of the Taliban allows attacks on the government, but allows the Talibs to play a double game in and of itself within Pakistan proper.

4) What exactly is it that allowed for Pakistani imperialism within Afghanistan when the Taliban refused the recognition of the durand line? I am sure the Panjab would have been just as happy with a Karzai type who was anti India. In fact, was it not just recently that the new AQ leadership was asking the Pak people to overthrow their leaders? Was it not just recently that Azzam's wife, in an al jazeera interview reprimanded anyone from speaking ill of a certain deceased AQ leader? It does not appear that Pakistan stole the Lithium out of Afghan hills during the Taliban era. I would be careful with the imperialism accusations when it is the same tool the ultranationalists utilize to criticize legitimate resistance.

5) It appears to me that you are not against the locals utilizing an armed struggle. So we might agree that not all that is called Taliban is Taliban. Would you concede this? If so, then is your qualm with the central shura?

6) It is easy to talk about a Camelot court type approach to insurgency. Not as easy to take a mass of people fighting guerilla war and instruct them and then force them to execute these same approaches you advocate. So now, what is the ideal SXE approach to Afghanistan? I am all ears and willing to listen.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Exactly so his "Non-intervention" is only in context to what he perceives as American Military being unwilling to do a thorough job......this does not mean he does not support a full scale assault on the Taliban because obviously if that was being done that's what he's advocating.

More practically, I think it means:
Dont get into a stupid fight in the first place and quit doing immoral things. If you get into it and cannot extricate because the American people are sheeple... then do whatever it takes to win.