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

[BarakzaiAbdali]

this is a complete lie and merely propaganda tactic used by Pakistani ISI servants like yourself. Ahmed Rashid isn't Pro-U.S. Invasion, he's against the ISI's exploitive stratagem, being against the ISI and their Taliban stooges isn't being "Pro-U.S."

"Descent Into Chaos": Ahmed Rashid on How the US Aid to "War on Terror" Ally Pakistan is Aiding the Taliban
This video pretty much exposes everything you're claiming as lies; here Ahmed Rashid tells Amy Goodman that the U.S. Government had facilitated the ISI in resurging the Taliban.

Stop posing as pro Liberation and resistance, you're Pro Pakistani slavehood.



That's because everything you've argued has been exposed



This has nothing to do with anything we're talking about, you committed a straw man fallacy again we're talking about the Pakistani ISI, and their probably made up character Mullah Umar, which would nullify your argument as moot.

You're clearly and obviously a Pakistani slave as evidence at your attempt at diverting



I use more or less the same sources that you do

even PressTV confirm that the Taliban were manufactured by the ISI
PressTV - Quick Facts: The US and Taliban

Even journalists from The Nation confirm this
The WikiLeaks Papers and the Pakistani Intelligence

and of course Wikileaks, a source even the Taliban themselves expressed support for, that is until they got exposed by them.

WikiLeaks Memos Say Ex-ISI Chief Plotted Karzai Assassination: Daily Outlook, Afghanistan

http://www.thenews.com.pk/NewsDetail.aspx?ID=18038



I use the same sources you do, the problem is you cherry pick stuff which you think make the Taliban look heroic and ignore all the bad stuff the Taliban do.






Yet, even Pakhtuns from Pakistan themselves confirm that the ISI supports the Taliban.

Afrasiab Khattak said ISI was saving Taliban from defeat: WikiLeaks | Pakistan | News | Newspaper | Daily | English | Online





your told the forum that you let your sisters prance around in soccer shorts in from of Catholic priests and you call me the pervert?



What does that have to do with beghairat Taliban slaves of the ISI?

Not so my friend. Ashraf is right in this situation and Rashid is well known to be a war hawk and to have had many many neoconservative ears:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michae..._b_371239.html

"And after interviewing the bestselling author I had no doubt his concepts influenced the President's decision to "finish the job" in Afghanistan, a doctrine announced by Obama on Tuesday which aides said will likely include a surge of approximately 30,000"

Take a look at what that menstrual waste and zionist Christopher Hitchens says in his praise:

"Lending even more credence to Ahmed Rashid's reputation is the fact that Christopher Hitchens described him as "Pakistan's best and bravest reporter", which is an astounding testimonial considering Hitchens dispenses compliments as often as the Taliban hand out birth control."

"Michael Hughes: What about this argument that Afghanistan isn't ready for democratic or parliamentary systems?

Ahmed Rashid: I think every country should have the chance of building a democratic process. There have been major mistakes made by Karzai and major mistakes made by the international community. You must have a political system in place that can grow and develop. Democracy is still the best possible system that we have."

" That is why you need more foreign troops and quicker training of the Afghan army, which is performing quite well except there are too few of them."

Here are his neocon credentials:

"That is why you need more foreign troops and quicker training of the Afghan army, which is performing quite well except there are too few of them."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...710065,00.html

"Then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld met with him to discuss his opinions, and Rashid was showered with invitations from the likes of neocon luminary Paul Wolfowitz and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. President Barack Obama invited him to dinner before his inauguration, at a time when Obama himself was apparently not very well informed about the situation in Afghanistan."

[BarakzaiAbdali]

When I say he is right, I mean about Rashid as obviously, the other subject matter is under debate, which is why we are here.

[unknownprince]

Who has exposed who? This super online predator/ pervert, Scimitar, has only exposed himself, his support for the US war against Afghanistan, and his avid support for war hawks like Ahmad Rashid who are championed by neocons bent on war against Afghanistan.

The fact that he champions Ahmad Rashid finally reveals his support for the US war against Afghanistan. For all the exposing he talks about, he has only exposed himself. They say empty vessels make too much noise

Scimitar wants to prove his so-called intellectual capabilities which are in fact void. Speaking about fallacies and what not means nothing when the whole basis of his perspectives are rotten to the core. He is only here to prove that he is right. It doesn't matter if he is wrong. Once he fails, you can see he then attacks people personally.

[Levanaye Zalmaye]

@BarakzaiAbdali and unknownAshrafGhaljay

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

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

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

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

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

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

[randolph85]

ashraf accusing others of being a pervert when he is the only one here who had to abandon his old multi thousand post sn because it was banned due to harassing women LOL this was before he made other sns before finally settling on his new ashy sn.

[unknownprince]

LZ, let me quote Barakzai's response to address your post.

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?

In regards to you hypotheticals about a pending civil war which supporters of the US war of aggression, use as their last minute justification to support further US war, it is void and null.

Saleh can not muster any ethnocentric support amongst Tajiks to bolster this US wish of civil war. Contrary to assumptions, Afghanistan in fact is not that divided as people wish it to be, fortunately.

It should speak volumes that the Taliban have made inroads in the North, already governing many parts of it.

In regards to your other hypothetical at trying to convince people of the so-called Taliban menace, you conveniently ignore the reasons why the Taliban rose to power. They rose to power in response to the chaos and crimes brought about by the fake Mujahideen. Most noteworthy, they arose to protect women/girls from rapes. Girls schooling was not banned, but restricted. For the same reasons, they have returned to power in the majority of Afghanistan. If they were/are too extreme, blame the wars which cause such a reaction aimed at restoring normalcy.

In regards to your talks of backwardness, in the original thread posted by Maiwand, backwardness is spoken against. Why do you think you, Scimitar, or I have a right to impose a foreign occupation, and an illegal and unacceptable government upon Afghans?

You can speak in as flowery language as you can, but in the face of facts, you choose to sing a song of a wishful thinker. Maybe secularist would have stood a chance had they fought for their country INSTEAD of against it, but old habits never seem to die, and as such they will continue to be despised and hated.

Taliban have been a part of Afghan society long before the slave states of Pakistan and India were given independence through begging.

There is nothing foreign about them. The name was just given to those who are rural and conservative. They never called themselves that.

If you want to know where the fault line lies, it is with the secular expats and the cowards who ran away when Afghanistan needed them the most, and only came back on the backs of a Russian, or US invasion. This is the poison that must be removed from Afghanistan, and forever prevented from returning.

The same poison exists today.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Not so my friend. Ashraf is right in this situation and Rashid is well known to be a war hawk and to have had many many neoconservative ears:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michae..._b_371239.html

this is a "meta-response" at best; Ahmed Rashid's own words should be used as a measure of Ahmed Rashid's intentions and motivations; and as we see Ahmed Rashid's words in DemocracyNow pretty much shutdown UnknownPakistaniServant's garble.

"Descent Into Chaos": Ahmed Rashid on How the US Aid to "War on Terror" Ally Pakistan is Aiding the Taliban



"And after interviewing the bestselling author I had no doubt his concepts influenced the President's decision to "finish the job" in Afghanistan, a doctrine announced by Obama on Tuesday which aides said will likely include a surge of approximately 30,000"

Take a look at what that menstrual waste and zionist Christopher Hitchens says in his praise:

"Lending even more credence to Ahmed Rashid's reputation is the fact that Christopher Hitchens described him as "Pakistan's best and bravest reporter", which is an astounding testimonial considering Hitchens dispenses compliments as often as the Taliban hand out birth control."

You're dscrediting Ahmed Rashid because of what others have said of him?

Christiopher Hitchen's once said this
What is American?: new identities in ... - Google Books

"I am an Anti-Zionist. I'm one of those people of Jewish descent who believes that Zionism would be a mistake even if there were no Palestinians."


does this statement become untrue because Christopher Hitchen's said it? Come on, let's leave the childish, amateurish logical fallacies for Pakistani Cronies like AshrafGhaljay and Imperiaist slaves like Toramana.

Here are his neocon credentials:

You're doing what's called in Logic Circles as "Quote Mining"

This is the full Ahmed Rashid quote , response to Michael Hughes question.

Michael Hughes: The U.S. is providing over $1 billion to fund anti-Taliban militias - the kind of strategy we used in the Sunni awakening - is this a prudent approach?

Ahmed Rashid: It's a very dangerous approach in Afghanistan because of this whole issue of warlordism. That is why you need more foreign troops and quicker training of the Afghan army, which is performing quite well except there are too few of them. The issue of warlordism was not as apparent in Iraq because you had a functioning state under Saddam Hussein, but you haven't had a functioning state in Afghanistan for the last two decades. These warlords in Afghanistan are predatory, will feed off the people, and eventually start harassing the very people they are supposed to protect. This should be a temporary solution, our whole philosophy and security cannot be built around militias

Hardly clarion call for Neo-Cosn at all,considering it was the Neo-Cons who supported, and promoted the galvanizaion of Warlorsd against the Taliban. Sounds like he understands the tyranny of the Taliban and the Warlords mutually.

Even Asshat Gayguy, knows the tyranny of the warlords.

"Then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld met with him to discuss his opinions, and Rashid was showered with invitations from the likes of neocon luminary Paul Wolfowitz and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. President Barack Obama invited him to dinner before his inauguration, at a time when Obama himself was apparently not very well informed about the situation in Afghanistan."

Musharaf was met by the same men, and yet the Taliban were aligned with his ISI cronies?

[ScimitarXEdge]

by the way Barakzai, I'm happy to debate you, but let Ashrafghaljay fight his own battles .....because he starts using your statements as pro-Taliban propaganda, and thinks that your quote minings were in proper context :P

[ScimitarXEdge]

Who has exposed who? This super online predator/ pervert, Scimitar, has only exposed himself, his support for the US war against Afghanistan, and his avid support for war hawks like Ahmad Rashid who are championed by neocons bent on war against Afghanistan.

The fact that he champions Ahmad Rashid finally reveals his support for the US war against Afghanistan. For all the exposing he talks about, he has only exposed himself. They say empty vessels make too much noise

Scimitar wants to prove his so-called intellectual capabilities which are in fact void. Speaking about fallacies and what not means nothing when the whole basis of his perspectives are rotten to the core. He is only here to prove that he is right. It doesn't matter if he is wrong. Once he fails, you can see he then attacks people personally.

This is only what Pakistani ISI slaves attempt to portray things to make it appear that supporting the Taiiban is the only alternative in a dichotomy with Imperialism

Ahmed Rashid demonstrates the ISI-Taliban relationship, the issue of suppoting him is a red herring, what he says is true and it has been proven by Wikuleaks


talk about attacking people personally, you try and discredit people by their Ethnicity, which sect of Islam they follow, and other ad-hominem fallacies. At least when others do it, it is demonstrate what a hypocrite you are, and not as a refutation.

[akbarkhan]

@BarakzaiAbdali You are wasting your time, seriously. You are talking with people choose to seek solace in conjecture.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Oh really AkbarKhan

then why do these "conjectures" appear to have backing from so many independent sources of evidence?

is Wikileaks and Ahmed Rashid in collaboration?

[unknownprince]

This is only what Pakistani ISI slaves attempt to portray things to make it appear that supporting the Taiiban is the only alternative in a dichotomy with Imperialism

Congratulations, you have officially entered the flat earth society with members such as Toramana and Comrade. Dichotomy this, fallacy that, what the heck is wrong with you? IS this all you know?

AFGHANS FIGHT TO FREE THEIR LAND FROM THE US OCCUPATION> THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY TO THIS. IS THAT CLEAR TO YOUR DENSE HEAD?

Ahmed Rashid demonstrates the ISI-Taliban relationship, the issue of supporting him is a red herring, what he says is true and it has been proven by Wikuleaks

SO WHAT? SO WHAT IF ALIENS FROM MARS SUPPORT AFGHANS for COMMON INTERESTS? Does the Afghan in Helmand care? They are freeing their country. What exactly is your point? How many times does one need to go over this? Some wealthy Gulf States also want the US out of Afghanistan.

Red herrings LOL I could use a plethora of vocabulary to make myself appear smart, but if the root of what I say is rotten, it means nothing. You have demonstrated this. You are either insanely out of touch, or you support the US war against Afghanistan. Perhaps you also need to feel that you have WON an argument just for the sake of winning. There is NO ARGUMENT IN THE FIRST PLACE. AFGHANS ARE FIGHTING BECAUSE the US-NATO are there. They will keep fighting until they leave. IS THAT CLEAR TO YOUR DENSE HEAD?

You coming here, and engaging in wasteful discussion just to "win" is a waste of time. You don't care to learn, only to prove yourself right in the face of being proven wrong time and time again.

talk about attacking people personally, you try and discredit people by their Ethnicity, which sect of Islam they follow, and other ad-hominem fallacies. At least when others do it, it is demonstrate what a hypocrite you are, and not as a refutation.

[/QUOTE] i am no ethnocentric, but Ahmad Rashid is a munafeeq who has fully supported war against Afghanistan, and Pashtuns specifically. The fact that you support him and champion him exposes your support for the US war against Afghanistan. NEWS flash: Ahmad Rashid also supports and encourages Pakistan to conduct a full scale operation against Waziritstan.

You can call this a tactic, but you, yourself are supporting a person who supports the US war against Afghanistan. Using the logic you pride yourself on, that means you support the US war against Afghanistan.

Using your own phrases: YOU ARE EXPOSED !!!

[ScimitarXEdge]

Y

AFGHANS FIGHT TO FREE THEIR LAND FROM THE US OCCUPATION> THERE IS NO CONSPIRACY TO THIS. IS THAT CLEAR TO YOUR DENSE HEAD?

Afghans fight for freedom and liberation but the Taliiban fight for Pakistani Agendas which is proven by their Unislamic methods of Jihad (suicide bombing, threatening civilians and non-combatants, extrajudicial executions etc etc etc).... why do we need this false dichotomy of Taliban are equal to Afghan interests?

You're not Afghan anyways, you're from Pakistan, stay there.

Take those red herrings you speak about, and shove it up your backside.

Wow and you're a accuse me of being a pervert; anyone who imagine shoving things up anyones backside is a homo. No wonder you get bent out of shape with women, you're jealous.

If I choose to, I can write more eloquently than you

But yet you still decide to remain a totally obtuse and blind sided, pakistani brainswashed moron.

, but if the root of what I say is rotten, it means nothing.

Well the root of what you're saying ignores the fact how almost all independent sources confirm the ISI dictate and manufacture the Taliiban; which makes everything else you're saying about the Taliban trying to liberate Afghanistan or representing Pashtun values, mean nothing.

You have demonstrated this. You are either insanely stupid, or you support the US war against Afghanistan.

Or I'm against people who corrupt Islam to make it appear like a society of backwards zealots who hate life and imperialists who try to transform human existence into a materialistic commodity.

see there you go again with False Dichotomies; you limit thing to being only two possibilities without logically warranting why those are the ONLY two plausible scenarios.

This is why your argument lacks any merit, it is logically inconsistent.

AFGHANS ARE FIGHTING BECAUSE the US-NATO are there

The Taliban=/= Afghans, if that were true, most Pashtuns or Afghans in general would support the Taliban movement

Being against NATO does not mean being Pro-Taliban, in fact that's the false dichotomy that NATO themselves attempt to use.


.

They will keep fighting until they leave. IS THAT CLEAR TO YOUR DENSE HEAD?

The Taliban will keep fighting until Pakistani Ji has regional control, the real AFghans fight both Pakistani Slaves and NATO.

You coming here, and engaging in wasteful discussion just to "win" is a waste of time. You don't care to learn, only to prove yourself right in the face of being proven wrong time and time again.

Which is basically you admitting that your arguments are being blown out of the water, under the fire of scrutiny and logical analysis. Repeating the same lies, that the Taliban represent Afghans, or that the Taliban are fighting to liberate Afghanistan is

i am no ethnocentric

and yet your first tthing was to highlight his ethnic background?

Ahmad Rashid is a munafeeq who has fully supported war against Afghanistan, and Pashtuns specifically.

That's total nonsense; he doesn't support a war against Afghans, he supports routing out the Taliban because the Taliban Organization is an ISI byproduct used to spread tyranny.; if he supported a war against Afghans, he wouldn't have criticized the U.S for fostering Anti-Taliban Warlords who are just as bad as the Talibx Being against the Taliban is not being against Afghanistan, the two are not logically equivalent. Since Taliban in 2011 do not represent the Afghan populace.

The Biggest Munafiq here is you, you send your own sisters to CHRISTIAN Schools, the same Christian Beliefs that NEOCONS wants to spread in Afghanistan in their imperial agenda, and you portray the Taliban as an afghan resistance AFTER having evidence shown to you from YOUR OWN SOURCES like Wikileaks that they re dictated by the Pakistani ISI. and kill Non-Combatant Afghans in suicide attacks, murders and beheadings, which is HARAM in Islamic Law.

You can call this a tactic (like the dumbass that you are), but you, yourself are supporting a person who supports the US war against Afghanistan. Using the logic you pride yourself on, that means you support the US war against Afghanistan.

Right you are, it is a tactic; and that tactic is even more evident here than anywhere. Again Committing another Straw-Man Fallacy and projecting your own Distorted interpolations; YOu fail to realize that I don't equate the Taliban as equal to Afghanistan, because they're not. ....That is the fatal error in your pathetic and fraudulent attempt at "Logic"

Hence you didn't use "logic" at all, because your premise was false to begin with; false premise---> false logic. This is called Intellectual Dishonesty

and by doing so; you have been further exposed as an Intellectually Dishonest Pakistani Slave......EXPOSED!!!

[unknownprince]

Pakistan was forced with money and coercion to play a double game. Contrast this with nuclear armed North Korea who for lack of a better term show the whole world the middle finger. Mind-set matters in this world, and nations are either slave like or free. Pakistan and India both got their "independence" not out of a armed resistance, but pretty much through begging. Hence, the consequences for such a feeble path are seen today where they have no independent foreign policy at all. Indians and Pakistanis are similar after all.

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


Hekmatyar urges Pakistan, Iran to end US support


Hekmatyar urges Pakistan, Iran to end US support

Saturday, September 03, 2011






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

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

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

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

[unknownprince]

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

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

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

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