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

[BarakzaiAbdali]

This whole Message of Felicitation is so stupuid, peopel who beliefs in there words are brainded. They are only telling lies and nothing more.

I am about to catch you up in a trap of your own making. I am proud of you for one reason and one reason alone... you were very honest here at this link:

http://www.pashtunforums.com/politic...42/index8.html

Here were your OWN words. Please pay special attention to the underlined parts. You were truthful there and did something that many of comrades in here in the past, from Mostafa to Toramana to the whole lot of them were unwilling to do: admit that the rural masses have a different perception of governance than do the elite or the Westernized Muslim population. I think only Osho before you was able to concede that he wanted to SUBVERT the will of his countrymen and was unabashed. You more than admitted that the Taliban's value system overlaps and reconciles quiet a bit more with the masses and made, with your own words, a solid argument for why they, or some acceptable equivalent, is more in line with the aspirations of the Afghan people.:

"I think that all Afghans are against this acupation, they only difrence is that some want a difrent resistantce than the taliban, we have to look at our history and see, when the russian where in Afghanistan peopel didn't care who the person against the russian were, if they were against them they were given money and weapons, but most peopel didn't realise that those peopel the so called "mujhahidin" wanted only power and money, becuase the same "mujhahidin" who were against the Kafir USSR are now sitting and letting 100 difrent Kafir nation in to Afghanistan. And now you peopel say it doesn't matter what the taliban are doing or what they have done in the past, they are against the accupiers so they are good. But if the Americans leave and the Taliban take power a lot of peopel are afraid that they would bring the same rule like they once did in the 90's. And some say the rural peopel are in favor, afcours they are in favor of taliban they don't know any better, they have the same mentality, like women is not allowed to go to work or to school. We peopel who have traveld to the WEst and have seen the world must realise that Taliban is not the solution. I am only pro taliban if they respect human rights and not do the same mistakes like in the past. But there is no gaurantee that they wouldn't do it.

So if some Afghans don't like taliban that doesn't mean that they love Americans and NATO, it is just the way taliban is fighting and what they did in the past. Because of that peopel have suspicion."

Your words alone.... not mine. Let us supplement this with scholarly views that affirm something that Mostafa and others are in idealistic denial of, namely that Taliban represent the rural Pashtun far better than available options.:

Here is an article by Dr. Kakar, a notable, renowned, but an ANTI Taliban Pashtun historian CONCEDES the same point you did above:

“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.

Now, the Americans also are beginning to admit this very same point, regarding the Taliban being, in the least, a representative of the rural religious tradition:

“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

Now to combat this reality (that the Taliban are certainly the best representation of the will of the rural masses, these same folks come up with the nonsense that the Taliban seek to inflict ISI hegemony on all of Afghanistan. They point to the monetary backing and “strategic depth” they afforded the Quetta shura as proof. Hogwash, I respond emphatically. Why? Well, take the example of Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, esteemed in some circles and derided in others. His value system means little to us in this analysis. What we know for sure is that he very likely had American backing and arms at some point during the Russo-Afghan war. Now to say that he was fighting to inflict American ideologies onto Afghanistan, so that Afghan school children could forget Pashto and recite the Pledge of allegiance, and replace Ahmad Shah Baba with Washington Baba is such an absurd thesis that if you recite it to a street fakeer he will show you all of his teeth. This is as absurd as the allegation that the Taliban seek to create Panjabistan solely because of their strategic assetts.

So then, what occurs again and again here is that the nationalists in support of Achekzai and his marxist ilk, and the Afghan elites in support of bygone days of Zahir Shah, Daud Khan, and (sickly enough) Najib create a flat earth society, reality defying narrative where every Pashtun was ready to do his comrade walk or buddy up in a pluralistic society with hindus.

You at least were brave enough to admit that you hold no such illusions. Then, let us speak in plain terms per your own quote above:

1) Why do you feel that you know what is best for the Afghan people?
2) Why do you suppose it is your right and NATOs right to subvert their will (which you admit) and to hoist upon them a secular system foreign to their way of life in some regard?
3) Have you not read history and not understood that generally, imposing such a system on a people rarely results in acceptance? Rather, a reactionary mindset settles in and radicalism increases as a response to occupation. It took nearly 1000 years for democracy to reach the American way, from Runny Meade in Britain, when King John ceded his power to the parliament, to the modern era. For you to think that it is correct to force your westernized views of what is right for not onto the native populace is a subversion of the right of a people to evolve their own way of governance autonomously (rubbish to whatever these folks assert and scream at this point regarding Saudi/Pakistani/Iranian hegemony… this is propaganda, pure and simple and they know it… it need not even be acknowledged.)
4) Dogs rights, womens rights, child labor laws etc… this appears to be the shining light you hold onto as set of privileges we must back the West in imposing on the Afghan people. How absurd. We are talking about a country where brutal warlords are being put back into power by the same modernizing NATO power you seek our support for, and you want to lead us to believe that they will erase thousands of years of customs, tribalism, and a way of life and replace it, no strings attached, with an enlightened modernistic government system that turns the countryside of Jalalabad into Los Angelas? The progression of individual rights in the US took hundreds of years. Black men were afforded the right to vote before women suffrage movements were able to propel a discussion about the 19th amendment into the public arena. Initially, in the US the fight was about who would get vote amongst white men à then who would get vote amongst men à then women were afforded the right to vote nearly 200 years after the American experience initiated on these shores à Under Kennedy further delineations were made regarding rights of all races/Civil rights. And these were the changes instituted on a people by themselves for their own gain to propel their own advancement. What makes you naïve enough to think that this nation, out for its own gain, as all empires are, will bestow such graces on you for your advancement by 2024?

[akbarkhan]

[COLOR=black]What makes you naïve enough to think that this nation, out for its own gain, as all empires are, will bestow such graces on you for your advancement by 2024?

What you have outlined is a simple point that most simpletons understand and the vast majority of "intellectuals" can not digest.

If America wanted a better Afghanistan, they would have negotiated with Taliban when Taliban were struggling to start negotiations with State Dept. back in 2001.

Do we ever wonder why US refused to negotiate back then? But now after 10 years of painful war, they are now trying to negotiate with Taliban?

"Men rise from one ambition to another: first, they seek to secure themselves against attack, and then they attack others."

[unknownprince]

The only negotiations that will ever take place will be for their complete withdrawal, nothing else.

[unknownprince]

Mullah Omar opposes limited withdrawal of troops

Mullah Omar opposes limited withdrawal of troops our correspondent
Tuesday, August 30, 2011






PESHAWAR: The Taliban supreme leader Mullah Muhammad Omar on Monday said limited withdrawal of foreign troops from Afghanistan was not a solution to the Afghan conflict and the Jihad would continue till the complete pullout of occupation forces from Afghanistan.

In his message made available to the Afghan Islamic Press (AIP) and other media organizations, Mullah Omar opposed the establishment of permanent US bases in Afghanistan. He said the enemies of Afghanistan had envisioned that the current year would be crucial to the defeat of the Mujahideen but their plans and calculations would prove wrong.

Mullah Omar said the enemy sustained more casualties in terms of human and material losses during the year compared to last years. The Taliban movement founder said that with the passage of each day the mujahideen were becoming more familiar with the tactics of the enemies by gaining access to new technologies. He added that the morale of his fighters was high and they had been able to infiltrate the ranks of their enemies.

Meanwhile, the Hezb-e-Islami leader Gulbadin Hekmatyar on Monday said that the ongoing peace process was no solution to the Afghan conflict. “The only solution of the issue was the continuity of jihad,” the Hezb-e-Islami chief said in his message on the occasion of Eidul Fitr.

He said the invading forces would have to leave Afghanistan and that they would leave all their supporters alone. “I ask all the supporters of the invading forces to withdraw support and don’t ask them to stay further in Afghanistan. The invading forces would leave you alone like the Russians left alone the communists. The Afghan nation would give an exemplary punishment to the enemies of the country,” Gulbaddin Hekmatyar said.

He said the only solution to the Afghan conflict was the continuity of jihad and withdrawal of foreign forces. “The foreign forces do not want end to the war. They are trying to buy the loyalty of some mujahideen by using money. But they will not be able to do so,” he added.

He said the Americans wanted to use Islamabad and Tehran against the Afghans. “They are facilitating Iran and forcing Pakistan for anti-Afghanistan activities,” Gulbaddin Hekmatyar stated in his message sent to the Afghan Islamic Press.

[afghan]

Would Mirwais neeka walk around in front of the Persians and their puppets to prove something?

NO

he removed them from his land.

i dont think mirwais neeka was supplied with modern communication equipments, by pakies ISI, how did he lead the nation? if he was hiding?

[BarakzaiAbdali]

i dont think mirwais neeka was supplied with modern communication equipments, by pakies ISI, how did he lead the nation? if he was hiding?

The two Hotaks are fighting two entirely different kinds of wars:

1) Mir Wais was fighting a frontal assault war with typical battle phalanxes against a rotting carcass power whose decline he had witnessed in Isfahan.

2) Omar Hotak is fighting a guerilla war against a super power in control of the land, the mountains, the air, and the sea... but not in control of the populace. It would be suicide to come out in the open and confront it head on. They tried that in the intial invasion with line upon fighting line of Taliban attempting to engage the Northern Alliance. Arial bombardment killed many young men on the spot. In fact, Rumsfeld, who had famously laughed at the Iraqis leaving the field and their rifles, said of these Afghans: these are warriors... He was astounded at how they hurtled towards their destiny.

[afghan]

The two Hotaks are fighting two entirely different kinds of wars:

1) Mir Wais was fighting a frontal assault war with typical battle phalanxes against a rotting carcass power whose decline he had witnessed in Isfahan.

2) Omar Hotak is fighting a guerilla war against a super power in control of the land, the mountains, the air, and the sea... but not in control of the populace. It would be suicide to come out in the open and confront it head on. They tried that in the intial invasion with line upon fighting line of Taliban attempting to engage the Northern Alliance. Arial bombardment killed many young men on the spot. In fact, Rumsfeld, who had famously laughed at the Iraqis leaving the field and their rifles, said of these Afghans: these are warriors... He was astounded at how they hurtled towards their destiny.

grana barakzai saeba
do you truely believe mula omar is fighting the Americans? if you do, mula omar gave an open invitation to the americans to invade afghanistan by refusing handing over binladen if he was ever in afghanistan i doubt it. do you think its ok to send some ones else's child on suicide mission but himself enjoying the luxury on ISI laps. now even our young sisters and daughters are sent on suicide missions to kill innocent people.
its an insult comparing mula omar with mirwais neeka.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

grana barakzai saeba
do you truely believe mula omar is fighting the Americans? if you do, mula omar gave an open invitation to the americans to invade afghanistan by refusing handing over binladen if he was ever in afghanistan i doubt it. do you think its ok to send some ones else's child on suicide mission but himself enjoying the luxury on ISI laps. now even our young sisters and daughters are sent on suicide missions to kill innocent people.
its an insult comparing mula omar with mirwais neeka.

Salamoona, Grana thasau yey, au meenzh zamindaaryaan yau.

I agree with you that Mir Wais and Mullah Omar are two entirely different sorts of men from two entirely different walks of life.

However,

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...up_d'%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-intervention-in-sudan-and-somalia-sowing-wars-whirlwind-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.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

grana barakzai saeba
do you truely believe mula omar is fighting the Americans? if you do, mula omar gave an open invitation to the americans to invade afghanistan by refusing handing over binladen if he was ever in afghanistan i doubt it. do you think its ok to send some ones else's child on suicide mission but himself enjoying the luxury on ISI laps. now even our young sisters and daughters are sent on suicide missions to kill innocent people.
its an insult comparing mula omar with mirwais neeka.

Moreover, its also a more complex matter that Karzai's own cousin discusses here in this joint essay with Zaeef:

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth...225708920.html

Here is his statement that needs to be taken into account when we examine the under equipped and underfunded Taliban resurgency/insurgency against the Americans:

"Third, an important fact the West needs to understand is that there are many different groups that carry out various acts of violence across Afghanistan - and at the end of the day, most of these acts are attributed to the Taliban.

It must also be noted that there are actors who take advantage of this knee-jerk reaction and misuse the identity of the Taliban for their own political purposes. Clear representation of and by the Taliban can put an end to these types of "misunderstandings". "

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth...225708920.html

I defer to the actual political theorists here like Ghaznavi and Graveyard etc, but I think a pertinent example similar to what Mr. Karzai is discussing in this essay is that of Zarqawi in Iraq versus the homegrown insurgency.

Mr. Zarqawi was not a salaafist as much as he was a takfirist and pretty much decimated the Islamist struggle's chances of saving face in Iraq since his attacks were brutal and generally undiscriminating. This distinction is important because subsequent leaders of the Iraq insurgency were given strict orders to avoid emulating him.

Finally, a great example of the radicalism in Pashtunistan that has occured can be illustrated by this graphic example.

Take a look at the Sikh's view of their survival in Afghanistan before the American invasion:

"The Taliban did not suppress us -- they respected our religion and if we had any problem they would resolve it immediately, let alone delay it until the next day," says Singh.
Some Afghan Hindus were baffled by Western outrage at one Taliban decree -- ordering them to wear a yellow tag to identify their religion -- saying in practical terms it spared their clean-shaven faces from the wrath of the Taliban religious police, who insisted Muslim Afghan men must grow beards."

http://in.reuters.com/article/2010/0...49826020100702

Compare this to the radicalization and treatment afterwards as NATO presence hardened in the region:

http://articles.timesofindia.indiati...-religious-tax

"The Taliban has reportedly beheaded two Sikhs in Pakistan's lawless tribal region bordering Afghanistan and sent the heads to a gurdwara."

So I think I have provided adequate evidences that urge you to identify the real root cause (Western and US interventionalism in the Muslim world) and to treat that first, as opposed to being distracted by the propaganda of suicide bombers, the canard of womens schools and rights being subverted etc. which are all horrible symptoms of reactionaryism and radicalism.

These issues take decades to resolve and the time between Hawthorne and his great grand uncle who headed up the American Taliban that hung scores of women as witches was nearly a hundred years or more...

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Mr. Abdali, you sir, are truly a great asset for all Pashtuns.

Not according to some my friend... I do my best to adhere to reality and evidence based practice. I am willing to stand corrected in an evidence based fashion. The issue here is that the logic that I try to work through above is more often than not met with accusations of ISI affiliations (none whatsoever as it is ILLEGAL for an American citizen to have links to foreign agencies, including Mossad/ISI/Savak/M16/NDS etc). When that does not work, it some sort of anti reality mechanism that creates heroes of those that have little proven links to the rural practices of Pashtuns, whether it is Mr. Achekzai, the deceased Mr. Najib, or a host of others. What you will find is that these discordant voices usually belong to fellow expatriates, fellow Westernized Muslims that have become drunk off the wine of interventionalism in their parents' countries, ideologues/sycophants standing to make a gain in the new Afghan order without realizing that they are recreating the corrupt KP right next door to that province, interestingly enough, those that seek to urge the US into adventures all around the world to follow through on the plan to bog it down in a multitude of struggles and spread it thin, Northern voices that adhere to Mr. Saleh's brand of governance where Ahmad Mossoud's face replaces Ahmad Shah Babas and Pashtuns are marginalized, and Afghan elites that are out of touch with the pulse of the rural lands that they claim to serve the interests of. When arguments of divesting and not intervening in Afghanistan are proposed, these bitter voices that stand to lose, should the interests of the Afghan heart land be followed through on, become obsessed with the spectre of Pakistanization of Afghanistan. Isolated and obsolete examples of Pakistani caravans passing through Afghan land are given as proof of occupation by Pakistan while the complex relationship I cited above are completely glossed over.

This absence of realism and practicality ought to be celebrated because neither are these clamoring minority voices as skilled as the AIPAC politicians that guarantee American interventionalism on behalf of Israel, nor are they as capable of governance as the Indians, who they claim to be using against Pakistan (little do they understand that powers use and sycophants get used).

This indicates their impending loss. They will either lose, in that they shall create a failed state next door to one... or they will lose against their battle hardened, practical adversaries.

[unknownprince]

The two Hotaks are fighting two entirely different kinds of wars:

1) Mir Wais was fighting a frontal assault war with typical battle phalanxes against a rotting carcass power whose decline he had witnessed in Isfahan.

2) Omar Hotak is fighting a guerilla war against a super power in control of the land, the mountains, the air, and the sea... but not in control of the populace. It would be suicide to come out in the open and confront it head on. They tried that in the intial invasion with line upon fighting line of Taliban attempting to engage the Northern Alliance. Arial bombardment killed many young men on the spot. In fact, Rumsfeld, who had famously laughed at the Iraqis leaving the field and their rifles, said of these Afghans: these are warriors... He was astounded at how they hurtled towards their destiny.

Good answer to a stupid question.

[unknownprince]

Here are the facts.

Karzai and Spanta ran away from Afghanistan when the Soviets invaded. Omar Hotak, along with many other Afghans, did not, he stood and fought.

Now, Karzai and Spanta have come back to fight against Afghans, but wait a second.. they themselves are too cowardly to pick up a weapon and fight, and instead support the US war against Afghanistan.

The reason is they live life to make money.

They have no ideals at all.

This is why they will never fight, and instead support a US war against the rest of the country.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

Very well said, I could not agree more.

Well they say art imitates life. I find it rather interesting that in this set of dramas of Kandahar:
kandahar pashto dram (da plar weera) part 1 - YouTube[/URL]

women acting parts are played by androgenous males as they were in Shakespearean/Elizabethan England when things were more conservative nearly 500 or so years ago in the West.

The last retort of this crowd is usually:
Oh yeah... well you, you, you (they usually stammer) LIVE IN THE WEST!!! (yep, you found me out). Then they somehow go on to attach criticism of NATO incursions and enforcing a way of life on a people who obviously do not want a way of life imposed on them, as preaching from a protected Western mimbaar or perch. Yet it is rather interesting that the face of the invasion force is failed Western technocrats and brigands... (ironic is it not?)

They are hard pressed usually to explain how Matt Hoh, Ron Paul, and Mike Scheuer and Chuck Hagel amongst others, with no attachment to the conservative strain in the Muslim world, also urge not using NATO or the US as a tool to enforce nation building or secularism on a people anywhere, anytime because it unleashes blowback for the involved parties.

Equally interesting is how their justification for living in the West and advocating their western compatriots of a different religious identity and different ethnic background fight their personal wars for them because they know they cannot fight with their bare hands against these war hardened adversaries of theirs.

Usually, you will note that when they are asked how living in the West and telling advocating the US stay out of the self determination of a people anywhere, especially in the Muslim world, translates into hypocracy, they stammer and accuse you of being involved in groups like Jamaat Islami amongst other organizations that have no role in the lives if diaspora. Moreover, last I checked Ron Paul had no membership in Jamaat... nor did Chuck Hagel... or perhaps their memberships expired.

This last ditch accusation is usually emblematic of these people being forced to see reality (they are advocating subverting a whole nation's right to autonomy and self determination and using a ruse that assumes that a superpower will build them up for free) and then trying to subvert reality as they do the rights of their brethren that their parents' ditched in the effort against the Russians that was a bloody affair.

They have an equally hard time dealing with Dr. Kakar and Mr. Hoh's common theme that the the insurgency is more representative of the grass roots than the Karzai technocrats or Najib ever was. This is usually the most efficient response to their failed attempt to identify the NATO force as more in tune with the heartland's pulse.

AFG21 was brave enough to admit this was the case and went on to admit that he seeks to oppress that right because he believes he knows what is best for Afghans and wishes to deny them the right to evolve their own governance systems... it is high time for the others as well to confront reality and reconcile their stance with their advocacy of the subversion of the rights of the rural Afghan masses.

Then, a serious and practical discussion can begin.

Until then, its just useless red herrings about Pakistani caravans, ISI demons, CIA Brzenzki driven Taliban, Saudi occupation, and a plethora of stupidies that are hand me down tales from their parents. I, for one, refuse to engage in that Azmaalian discussion anymore... its too 1984ish for any intelligent person's comfort level. Look for the string of Pakification insults to begin soon. It is the last refuge of the beaten.

[ScimitarXEdge]

I would be very interested to hear the exact content of your prayer, word by word. Could you please share it with us?

rabbana talaghaa al thulmeen methal mullah omar min ummakum wa itaqam al saliHeen alladhinna yahazamounahum min al dunya ameen thumm ameen

[Catya Sher]

Not only did Mullah Omar stay and fight the Soviets - unlike these other slimy
chameleons who worship anyone who hands out a dollar or two -
but Mullah Omar FOUGHT for the rights of....yes, women !
Or one woman who had been attacked.

Ever hear that mentioned much in the Jewish-leftist-secularist-feminist
American "media" ?
Rarely these days.

So Mullah Omar bravely took on evil people and stood up for justice and
fairness.

That's why he has a track record which should be admired among Afghans.

Too many Afghans abroad -
-- let's not use the word Diaspora as it's Jewish after all -
copy all attitudes projected through this highly deceptive, lying press.

My recommendation is to NOT read reports from "experts" which are
tainted. Usually these are attached to some Zionist or similar think tank
or organization which is hardly objective. And hardly looking out for the
interest of Afghans. Only they work for Israel FIRST and America Second.
That's it.
I would avoid them all like the plague.

It only takes one drop of poison in a teaspoon of
honey to make one very sick and unable to reason clearly.

This message whether written or polished by any advisers or not,
represents the ideas of Mullah Omar.
One can see the outstanding qualities of
decency, fairness to all parties, thoughtfulness [ he included the
suffering prisoners for example in his greeting ]
and ability to see clearly what IS the need of the hour.

The message is direct and simple ; it caters to no particular interest
group [the way American 'politicians' couch all their phrases to appeal to
this or that constituency and above all, to Israel...! They have no
real ideas of their own; they merely repeat polite phrases which are
suitably vague and make promises which they never have even a tiny
intention to fulfil.]

By contrast, this is so admirable. You guys should appreciate him,
instead of mock him. It's really wrong to be so condescending.