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

[BarakzaiAbdali]

The point is this type of democratic process has existed and was even employed by the early Muslims. Those who say otherwise are being intellectually dishonest

A process of consultation and people having a say existed... but certainly not the American form of democracy as we see it practiced. I think you would agree with that. I would venture to say that Abdullah ibn Zubair did not feel as if he had a choice despite his esteemed status.

For instance, in jamaa Al Quran, the process of consultation and recognition by Ibn Masud, Bin Kaab, and the host of companions provided for codification of what would be the ratified constitution of the ummah. These were people endowed with Quranic promise who were supreme hafizaan. This in turn had to be supplemented with multiple written witnesses. No regular Joe could just weigh in on that consultative process.

Just as we might say that a process of consultation existed for the Pashtuns when they alotted a tribal leader... but it certainly did not mean that the local hindu used for trade made a decision in the tribal heirarchy... nor did a prominent non Muslim have a role to play in the choosing of who held power.

[faye]

i don't care where it came from, i see how it is utilised today.

[randolph85]

I meant to ask you... why no love for Hulkamania in your icons or signatures??? Its really unfair to the Ultimate Warrior or to Hogan that neither of them get the respect they do from entering the annals of Randolph icons.

the ultimate warrior is an ultimate republican these days, and hulk is as american as apple pie. not the biggest fan of either of them!

[ScimitarXEdge]

A process of consultation and people having a say existed... but certainly not the American form of democracy as we see it practiced. I think you would agree with that. I would venture to say that Abdullah ibn Zubair did not feel as if he had a choice despite his esteemed status.

But that's a red herring made by anti-democracy opponents; It's a slippery slope argument. like Randolph said it seems the minute the word democracy is mentioned they think gay dudes kissing on the street or something. They let their imaginations run wild

[ScimitarXEdge]

i don't care where it came from, i see how it is utilised today.

well that's because as a white westerner you naturally adopt your cultural biases

[faye]

well that's because as a white westerner you naturally adopt your cultural biases

if i was as well brainwashed by white society as you, i might. but i aint.

[ScimitarXEdge]

if i was as well brainwashed by white society as you, i might. but i aint.

but you are, hence you associate what rightfully belongs to Muslims, with whites

case closed

[BarakzaiAbdali]

But that's a red herring made by anti-democracy opponents; like Randolph said it seems the minute the word democracy is mentioned they think gay dudes kissing on the street or something. They let their imaginations run wild

I think the sensitivity to it comes from the way Toramana and others trumpet it as a panacea to all ills. More measured voices point out that tyranny comes in various forms. There is an ebb and flow and interrelation to freedom and success across the world and its masses. The Americans believe that they enjoy their freedoms because they can export oil, by force if necessary, cheapy through the gulf of guinea. Yet they themselves have little realization, except for a few in the think tanks, that they generally have little choice (take for instance the last election where the people here had a choice between escalation in Afghanistan (Obama) and in Iraq (McCain). The complexity deepens for those of us raised here and for Americans in the know when we see how, if the media complex cannot find dirt on you, they deride you or mitigate your influence by simply blacking out your progress (e.g. what occurs regularly to Ron Paul and Kucinich).

In an attempt to hoist ideological viewpoints on a people, these voices generally make claims that democracy is the most beneficial form of governance and then sneak the word secularism in there.

Moreover, I think this goes back to your central argument that the electoral Afghan process may be a way to affect change. Where I disagree is that any system controlled by NATO and the US has not yielded such results in other places and is unlikely to yield it in Afghanistan. The way democracy is executed in Afghanistan and Pakistan is a clown show. Villages are rallied by strong men and ballot boxes are stuffed.

So I think the attempt to simplify this and to say, well Islam and democracy are compatible to justify the implementation of NATO/UN mandates is to hoist a foreign rule onto the Afghan people.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Toramana advocates "Secular" democracy, which is quite vastly different than what an Isamic democracy would be.

[randolph85]

islam and anything can be justified by westerners when it comes to friendly regimes. islam and kingdoms, islam and revolutionary dictatorships, islam and democracy. its no different than what other regional players want for afghanistan, islam and an emirate, islam and warlords.

u are talking about western imposed systems while i believe SXE and i are talking about indigenous systems that are practiced and enforced by the people. this goes beyond our current miserable situation. a system that will outlast america's time as a super power and beyond.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

islam and anything can be justified by westerners when it comes to friendly regimes. islam and kingdoms, islam and revolutionary dictatorships, islam and democracy. its no different than what other regional players want for afghanistan, islam and an emirate, islam and warlords.

u are talking about western imposed systems while i believe SXE and i are talking about indigenous systems that are practiced and enforced by the people. this goes beyond our current miserable situation. a system that will outlast america's time as a super power and beyond.

Yes but that leaves us back at sqaure one with my discussion with SXE. He offered me various options that appear to work within the current Karzai government paradigm when it comes to the electoral process overturning the order of things. He did afford those that work under the banner Taliban, but who are fighting independently against occupation some slack. SXE still has to address who the Pakistani Taliban are... why they attack Pakistani installations... why Hakimullah Mehsud swears bayaat to Omar... and describe exactly what Mullah Omar would have to do to not be considered a tool of Pakistani imperialism, in his view. After all, the minute Omar shows his face, there is a drone waiting with a missile for him. It would be suicide and foolishness for him to simply walk off Pakistani soil and into Afghanistan to be murdered.

The idea is to equate American hegemony as an equal and opposite evil as Pakistani hegemony, or to associate the Taliban with the latter and then pin the American tail on the Pakistani donkey. The issue there is that SXE is making the improbable assumption that Pakistan and America are equal players in a chess game. It also ignores the complexity behind what the ISI is (a cadre of zealots, sell outs, and Pakistani nationalists all in one group of people). It is also not one monolithic entity. Its recent leader was more in line with well wishing for America and its past lears have been zealots and Ziaists. Furthermore, it is a very probable situation that the Taliban is comprised of people that want to fight Americans in Afghanistan but view Pakistanis as Muslims and less worthy of killing then infidels. For them to suddenly destroy their option of a backward operating base would be a strategy meant go bring failure. They may, as Ghaznavi has pointed out, regard the occupation as the greater of two evils, and are driving it out in a war of attrition. SXE has to explain where Omar would operate from if not the classical backward operating base of Pakistan. The Ghazis of Amanullah derived from the tribal belt as did the enemies of Bacha Saqao when it was a backward operating base in previous eras. Where the Wazirs and the Mehsuds simply pawns of British anti Russkey policy then? I think not... they were tribesmen who sided with their own ethnic clansman. They cared little for the British, but they saw a benefit for themselves in backing the British stooge Nadir Shah.

SXE answers that by playing the game and marching to Pakistani orders (which they cannot be doing lock, stock, and barrell if Pakistan clearly killed Nek Muhammad, clearly killed Baitullah Mehsud, and now is clearly trying to kill H Mehsud) the Taliban endorses imperialism of America by extension. That is simply an opinion. The guy who shot a rocket into a chinook a few weeks ago is clearly not endorsing imperialism. He is some simple bloke who is pissed off that some foreign force is in his backyard and is not thinking through these intellectual algorithms of who funds the Pakistanis... he just considers it his holy duty to drive these Americans out. His subsequent interview appears to confirm this. To say that he deserves death because he swears loyalty to Mullah Omar undercuts any legitimate fighting resistance as a whole swath of groups including hekmetyar now are sympathetic to Omar.

Finally, to those that would work inside the Afghan democracy paradigm I would say that this is farcical for the following reasons:

"Both the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David H. Petraeus, and his predecessor, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, have referred at times to Karzai as their commander in chief — a bow to the authority of an elected Afghan government. But in reality, that chain of command is not binding. The U.S. military operates in Afghanistan under a NATO mandate and does not have a bilateral “status of forces” agreement with Afghanistan that would legally restrict operations. Karzai’s demands to stop night raids and coalition airstrikes struck one U.S. military official as “mind-boggling."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...H_story_1.html

What does this mean? This means that even if Karzai is considered a legitimately elected leader (which he is not)... he has no writ and by extension... any of the figures you promote, would have to partake in violent insurrection as American and NATO force have no committment to actually obey the paper Afghan state or the potential puppet that goes and sits on the takhth next.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

We also have to address exactly why Abdul Azzam, well regarded by SXE, gets a free pass on being a Pakistani agent when he

1) Operated on Pakistani soil
2) Knew that the war was benefiting Pakistani generals who benefited from American largesse even then
3) Knew that America was actively operating in the region

In my view, Azzam was practical and would have been instantly killed had he attempted to operate out of Kabul or Jalalabad.

However, Azzam's worldview did not endorse Pax Americana and both he and OBL viewed the Americans as an equally potent threat to the region. He did continue to overlook Pakistani contributions to the effort and the fact that USAID was helping to build many of the roads in Waziristan that led into Afghanistan that his units utilized to find their way into Afghanistan.

Furthermore Kawun Kaker does not quality his quote temporally, his commentary on the Taliban and their ability to reconcile much more closely with Pashto culture is proven very easily. We can recall that Mr. Karzai was able to penetrate Helmand on his initial incursions. He had bags of money with him that his brother, the more practical and brutal Ahmad Wali, was able to arrange. A series of Popalzai tribal elders and royalist were on the receiving end of this largesse. The tribal elder system itself was not completely turned on its head by the Afghan Taliban. Rather, they allowed these maliks to enjoy a degree of autonomy and the latter simply switched sides to save their own bacon.

And as I have noted, the Durand line issue is a clear and proven account of Taliban intransigence that bristled Islamabad. The inability of Pakistan to stop Omar from blowing up the Buddahs, and a slew of other issues does little to support SXE's narrative that the Taliban were marching lock stock and barrell to Islamabad's tune. They also had money flowing to Hekmetyaar who was probably a little less firebrand than they were... I am sure that if Pakistan had an option of a

1) Bungra heavy, Panjabified style, Kabul disco dancing militia that agreed to not cozy up to India versus

2) The Taliban

it would have preferred the former to draw less attention to its locale. Really, I think we have to discuss exactly how Pakistan, which has so little ability to protect and successfully allocate its own resources or protect its own assetts has so much skill as to create a phantom Mullah Omar a whole Shurah and then to sell that pitch for a decade. That would then imply that there is some massive conspiracy and Pakistan organized 9/11 and the whole affair simply to get a war that threatens its own vital stability and strategic depth into its backyard. All of these assumptions turn Pakistan into some super smart kid on the block state which it simply cannot be.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Pakistani Taliban are... why they attack Pakistani installations... why Hakimullah Mehsud swears bayaat to Omar... and describe exactly what Mullah Omar would have to do to not be considered a tool of Pakistani imperialism,.

In my understanding they're gulllble tools in part and a scapegoat by the Pakistani Military to say "hey look we have Talib problems too". the equipment used and soldiers fighting are generally Pakhtuns from the same region, their lives are expendable and American AID can funnel new equipment. Furthermore they outsource fighting to tribal militias, again to them Pakhtun lives are expendable. very cheap.

and voila Pakistani Taliban

[BarakzaiAbdali]

In my understanding they're gulllble tools in part and a scapegoat by the Pakistani Military to say "hey look we have Talib problems too". the equipment used and soldiers fighting are generally Pakhtuns from the same region, their lives are expendable and American AID can funnel new equipment. Furthermore they outsource fighting to tribal militias, again to them Pakhtun lives are expendable. very cheap.

and voila Pakistani Taliban

Yes but they swear allegience to Omar, have killed thousands of Pakistani soldiers (confirmed numbers), have created embarassing situations in military base attacks in various regions, and would only offer the US a pretext, along with other NATO powers, to seize Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. Moreover, H Mehsud and his men conducted a complex operation with the Jordanian doctor in Khost. This frightened the Americans quiet a bit into an understanding that these groups, including Hekmetyaars are laying aside differences to join together.

The more probable explanation is that:
1) Pashtuns on the Pak side of the durand line are doing what they have done since Islamic time imemmorial... offer fighting men when need be. Many innocent boys went and have fought, only to die, and to be buried in unmarked graves in Afghanistan. I think its unfair to denigrate these boys and their sacrifice for their ideals as being used as pawns. Their niyaat was their own.

2) These same folks in 1) developed a problem with Pakistan when they awoke to the fact that Pakistan is sending arms to the same NATO soldiers that kill them across the border. Warnings were given by Baitullah mehsud to Islamabad, to no avail. Baitullah was then killed. Nek Muhammad was killed before him after trying to carve out a peace deal that would allow him to be pragmatic and focus efforts in Afghanistan and avoid confrontation with the Pak forces.

The Khorasaani government of Mr. Karzai views Pashtun lives as no less expendable my friend.

A logical conclusion is that Pakistan actually does have a Taliban problem of its own that resulted form its double gaming and double dealing. These folks were given little concessions, such as buner and swaat and then, when the pressure from DC and Hilary Clinton mounted... they could not tow the line anymore and decided to expend some more Pashtun lives.

None of this, however, makes the average Talib foot soldier an infidel or an imperialist and I believe youd be hard pressed to prove that point. The same then goes for Omar. Practicaly and pragmatism is no less what he has to confront than what Azzam had to deal with.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Yes but they swear allegience to Omar, have killed thousands of Pakistani soldiers (confirmed numbers), have created embarassing situations in military base attacks in various regions,

I don't see where that conflicts with my assessment, most of those soldiers are Pakhtuns themselves.

and would only offer the US a pretext, along with other NATO powers, to seize Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

Unless, the U.S. understands they're just sending out cannon fodder, which appears to be the case.

Moreover, H Mehsud and his men conducted a complex operation with the Jordanian doctor in Khost.

"Acceptable Losses" is what the U.S.Strategic Think tank refer to these things.

This frightened the Americans quiet a bit into an understanding that these groups, including Hekmetyaars are laying aside differences to join together.

I don't see Hekmatyar giving Taliban any official endorsement, only that he wants NATO out. Not really a huge threat to Pakistani nukes as you were insinuating.

The more probable explanation is that:..... I think its unfair to denigrate these boys and their sacrifice for their ideals as being used as pawns. Their niyaat was their own.

This an appeal to emotion; it is only unfair from our standpoint, for Pakistan; cannon fodder is cannon fodder.

These same folks in 1) developed a problem with Pakistan when they awoke to the fact that Pakistan is sending arms to the same NATO soldiers that kill them across the border.

Then they would be charging to the gates of Islamabad just like they did in the 90's with Kabul.

The Khorasaani government of Mr. Karzai views Pashtun lives as no less expendable my friend.

agreed, you seem to be arguing from Ashraf's false dichotomy, that opposing Taliban means endorsing the Government.

A logical conclusion is that Pakistan actually does have a Taliban problem of its own that resulted form its double gaming and double dealing.

Logic tells us the Pakistan's Taliban problem is an extension OF its double dealing.

One thing I find peculiar is that the supposed Afghan Taliban leaders such as the mysteriously elusive Mullah Umar, thus if they make bay'ah with Mullah Umar indicates that they have no plans of uprooting the Pakistani Military or Government machinery, but just give a nice gun show where rank and rile die.

None of this, however, makes the average Talib foot soldier an infidel or an imperialist

ah but that is the thing; we're talking about the Movement, not the poor Pakhtun who's having his heart strings manipulated by Satan's in Imam's clothing

This is a variation of the pigeonholing argument of conflating resistance fighters incidentally conflated with the Taliban with the actual nefarious Quetta Shura and other treacherous weasals.