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

[ScimitarXEdge]

People who get all their information from Wikipedia and google are the biggest jokes LOL

Dogs for foreigners LOL

What about Wikileaks?


http://worldmeets.us/outlookafghanis...#axzz1WkeToD4l

why is the Pakistani ISI so concerned about Karzai?

[unknownprince]

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?

Quit reading Wikipedia Scimitar,

read the above FACTS.

[unknownprince]

What about Wikileaks?


http://worldmeets.us/outlookafghanis...#axzz1WkeToD4l

why is the Pakistani ISI so concerned about Karzai?

Karzai will either run like the coward he is or end up like Najib. It doesn't matter what he, US, or Pakistan says.

Afghans are overthrowing another empire. No Pashtun from Eastern or Southern Afghanistan gives a crap to what you or I type away here. Is that clear to you Wikipedia man?

[unknownprince]

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?

^these are facts.

[ScimitarXEdge]

min ummakum?
from your mother?

ummatikum? Odd..never heard it as ummatullah...but ummati muhammad.

you are a weird one...calling him a mawla, a guardian, and then a zalim, a tyrant too...

but yeah...you just had to show off to him like that knowing he won't know what it is you said anyway.


instead say "allahuma ihidinee ala dinika wa la taj3al al dunya akbara hami" pray for your self oh lost one...

um (mother) and in classical Arabic''Umahatikum" becomes "your mothers" as in this verse

مَا جَعَلَ اللَّهُ لِرَجُلٍ مِنْ قَلْبَيْنِ فِي جَوْفِهِ وَمَا جَعَلَ أَزْوَاجَكُمُ اللَّائِي تُظَاهِرُونَ مِنْهُنَّ أُمَّهَاتِكُمْ وَمَا جَعَلَ أَدْعِيَاءَكُمْ أَبْنَاءَكُمْ ذَلِكُمْ قَوْلُكُمْ بِأَفْوَاهِكُمْ وَاللَّهُ يَقُولُ الْحَقَّ وَهُوَ يَهْدِي السَّبِيلَ ﴿33:4

umma (nation/community) is not the same word, and I made a typographical error, in respects to ummatikum, simple typographic error it happpens, you make granmatical errors all the time it happen for example "dunya al akbara" should be "dunya kubra hamiyah". no I called him Mullah, mullah is a distortion of Mawla, which in Arabic makes it another word entirely.

I thought you lived in Kuwait and knew arabic ? Looks like another lie you've told me. along with saying you sold your Pork Vending Restaurant.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Karzai will either run like the coward he is or end up like Najib. It doesn't matter what he, US, or Pakistan says.

Afghans are overthrowing another empire. No Pashtun from Eastern or Southern Afghanistan gives a crap to what you or I type away here. Is that clear to you Wikipedia man?

Why is the Pakistani ISI involved in the assasination of Karzai?

You used to PRAISE Wikileaks ...why are you disparaging them now?

[ScimitarXEdge]

Quit reading Wikipedia Scimitar,

read the above FACTS.

why were you praising Wikileaks before and now discredit them as a biased source?

Is it because they have things that wont serve Taliban propaganda?

can someone tell me how true the allegations of drug dealing were? And also Wikileaks revealed that the US did not like him, and were looking for ways to bypass him. were in some cables which were leaked, they expressed deep annoyance with him.

[unknownprince]

why were you praising Wikileaks before and now discredit them as a biased source?

Is it because they have things that wont serve Taliban propaganda?

notice how he starts making up lies about people, and then changes the topic.

I AM TALKING ABOUT YOUR DEPENDENCE ON WIKIPEDIA (PEDIA) for everything

And I don't care who wanted Wali dead, the guy was a supporter of the war against Afghans.,

[unknownprince]

Why is the Pakistani ISI involved in the assasination of Karzai?

You used to PRAISE Wikileaks ...why are you disparaging them now?

im not disparaging anything, and I could care less if aliens wanted wali karzai dead, the guy was a supporter of the war against Afghanistan

Answer Barakzai's post, or do you lack the brain power?

[unknownprince]

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?

Read this instead of that wkipedia site that you bookmark LOL

[ScimitarXEdge]

^these are facts.

They're also Red Herrings and Strawman arguments,

read the article Barakzai wrora wrote which he quotes Dr.Kawun Kakar

In reality, the traditional way of life in villages has changed little by Taliban's rule

this was during the early era of the Taliban BEFORE they started using suicide attacks and widespread beheading and concentrated their oppression of Afghans on mainly minorities.

This is is from the article in The Nation; Barakzai wrora quoted.

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.

this is another atricle IN the Nation which Barakzai wrora quoted from

http://www.thenation.com/blog/37941/...ban-connection

It’s interesting that in its report, the Times emphasizes the involvement of Pakistan, its army and its intelligence service, the ISI, in support of the Taliban. Not that ISI’s support of the Taliban has been much of a secret, of course, since it’s been widely known and reported for years, and since it was the ISI that created, armed, and trained the Taliban in the early 1990s. But the Times and WikiLeaks database helpfully reinforce that concept. Reports the Times:

so like you said if these are facts than THIS is also a fact. Now don't go saying The Nation is western propaganda because you just ASSERTED that their statements are "facts"

some of the Arguments are also Straw Man arguments
No one is denying that the Taliban put on the facade of presenting themselves as sympathetic to the Pashtun cultural practices; but that does not in anyway Preclude that they're not doing so to protect Afghans or preserve Pashtun values or anytthing of that sort, but to Create false legitimacy and serve Pakistani interests.

So posting 100 articles claiming they're following Pashtun culture doesn't disprove their servitude to the Pakistani ISI which in turn is an Imperialist proxy; in fact what they're doing is smearing Islam and Pashtuns in the mud but putting on a Pashtun cultural cloak.

By the way this refutes the post you claim no one has the "brain power" to refute.

[ScimitarXEdge]

im not disparaging anything, and I could care less if aliens wanted wali karzai dead, the guy was a supporter of the war against Afghanistan

Answer Barakzai's post, or do you lack the brain power?

No, because it is misleading.

[unknownprince]

I said Barakzai's assessment were facts you fool

your a waste. The US presence is the cause for ALL THE VIOLENCE. Afghans will not stop fighting until they and their puppets leave.

IS that clear to you?

Quit supporting the US war in a disguise.

[unknownprince]

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?

keep reading

[ScimitarXEdge]

by the way from the same artilce in The Nation I just quoted from which you claim presents Facts AshrafGhaljay

why are Pakistanis denying their connections to the Taliban, if they're really trying to liberate Afghanistan from American Imperial yoke?

http://www.thenation.com/blog/37941/...ban-connection

The Pakistanis are angry and upset about the Wikileaks report, and of course they deny everything, declaring that they are shocked, shocked to hear allegations of a Pakistan-Taliban connection. Amid all the huffing and puffing, however, the Post quotes one Pakistan official as follows: