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

[BarakzaiAbdali]

"I think I think I think"

I'm responding to Barakzaiabdali's analogy of the "reluctant soldier". I understand what Scheuer is saying, but he's not saying that because he cares for Afghan lives, he's saying that because America won't engaged in scorched Earth tactics which he feels would be the only option he'd support to win a war.

One could argue that There would be no war in Afghanistan if there were no Taliban but the beat goes on.

That is mis representing him my friend. That is like saying that he opts for the war option in the first place and therefore, he is brutal. Also, as an American, would you expect him to opt for a losing strategy of fighting a war of attrition? What should he say, in your opinion? Obviously, he is not going to recite shahadaa and throw flowers at guns... that is a losing strategy. His job as an analyst is to tell his superiors the truth: This war is not ours to fight, its not our business to interfere in the Muslim world... however, if you are dumb enough to force the fight then the only way to win such a war is to use your power.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I hardly think that this latest post at Nonintervention.com endorses war making and rabble rousing in the Muslim world. He clearly is a brilliant and intellectual opponent, truly worthy of the title, People of the Book as he is honest and wants to extricate his people from this foolishness. His command of history and of the most common sense solutions to real world problems really brings out his brilliance. For his enemies, he truly is a worthy opponent.

http://non-intervention.com/996/interventionists-ready-a-media-lynching-for-ron-paul/

Interventionists ready a media lynching for Ron Paul


The past ten days have seen a spate of pieces on Google News damning Congressman Ron Paul for “blaming” America for the 9/11 attacks. This is just the start of what will become a wave of ever-more shrill and lie-filled attacks on Mr. Paul as long as he is seeking the Republican presidential nomination and continues to find growing public support. The attacks on Mr. Paul are and will be the work of the Neoconservatives, the Israel-First fifth column of U.S. citizens, and AIPAC and those it controls in the Congress, media, and academy.

Mr. Paul, of course, never blamed the United States for the war the Islamists started and are now waging on the United States. What he did say is merely what is true beyond any credible challenge: Our growing number of Islamist enemies are motivated to attack us because of what the U.S. government does in the Muslim world and not because of how Americans live and think here at home. Mr. Paul bravely and clearly delivers this essential message to U.S. voters, and as long as he tells this truth he will receive the venom and slander of the above mentioned people and organizations.
And worse is yet to come. On 1 and 2 September 2011, Commentary Magazine — long Israel-First’s flagship publication — identified Mr. Paul’s truth-telling in regard to the impact of U.S. foreign policy in the Islamic world as a “bizarre and twisted interpretation of events” and described him and his supporters as taking Osama bin Laden’s statements as their bible. Commentary went on to damn Mr. Paul and his supporters as follows:

“[Congressman] Paul seems intent on blaming America for the burning [Islamist] hatred directed against us, to the point that he has to disfigure history to justify it. It’s a peculiar citizen who would do such a thing. I suppose I understand why most Republicans (with the fine exception of Rick Santorum) have not taken on the noxious ideology of Representative Paul. But the dirty little secret is Ron Paul holds views that are disgraceful. It seems to me that conservatives, in the name of reaching out to those who inhabit the loony fringes of the libertarian movement, shouldn’t pretend otherwise.”

If this sounds familiar it is because it is precisely the kind of attack that was used against the America First organization when it sought to prevent America from entering the European War that began in September, 1939. Interventionists in both parties; much of the media; senior members of the Roosevelt Administration; leaders of Britain’s pro-intervention covert action program in the United States; and spokesmen for Jewish-American organizations all slandered America First members as disloyal citizens who were ignorant of the world. Together these entities misidentified distinguished Americans who were using 1st Amendment rights to defend what they saw as U.S. interests as traitors, madmen, Nazi sympathizers, and anti-Semites. In their words this week, the articles in Commentary and elsewhere have identified Dr. Paul and the millions who agree with him as “peculiar” citizens (traitors?); madmen (“loony fringes”); and bin Laden sympathizers.

If Mr. Paul continues telling the truth and his support keeps growing, Israel-First’s next step will be to begin smearing him as an anti-Semite, just as Charles Lindbergh and other America First leaders were falsely identified in the late 1930s by the sorts of people noted above. And such attacks on Mr. Paul probably will be more vicious than those on Lindbergh, et al. Some of those who opposed America First, for example, conducted a sharp but fair-minded debate over a clearly substantive and legitimate question: “Does Nazi Germany pose a threat to genuine U.S. national interests?”

Today, however, Mr. Paul’s attackers know they have no legitimate, defensible issue on their side of the debate, only their malevolent desire to see America fight all of Islam on Israel‘s behalf. Indeed, they know the United States and its interests are in large measure threatened and attacked by Islamists because of the U.S. government’s relentless and unquestioning intervention on Israel’s behalf. Thus, the combination of the fact that Mr. Paul’s words are gaining traction with some Americans, and that the Israel-First position is built on sand — that is, it is clear no U.S. interest is served by the current U.S.-Israel relationship — means that Mr. Paul’s attackers use any and every kind of slander to defame him and to ensure the United States will fight to protect Israel against the rising and uncontrollable tide of anti-Israel sentiment that is being produced by the so-called Arab Spring.

In this vein, Commentary’s description of Mr. Paul’s “noxious ideology” is a first step that probably will lead to a systematic Israel-First effort to identify Mr. Paul and those who support him as anti-Semites simply because they do not want to see America’s soldier-children die fighting in an irrelevant Israel-Muslim religious war in which no genuine U.S. interests are at risk

[faye]

the slander had to happen. must be a real threat then.
oh, for america to have a president who is not a chestbeater.

[ScimitarXEdge]

That is mis representing him my friend. That is like saying that he opts for the war option in the first place and therefore, he is brutal. Also, as an American, would you expect him to opt for a losing strategy of fighting a war of attrition? What should he say, in your opinion? Obviously, he is not going to recite shahadaa and throw flowers at guns... that is a losing strategy. His job as an analyst is to tell his superiors the truth: This war is not ours to fight, its not our business to interfere in the Muslim world... however, if you are dumb enough to force the fight then the only way to win such a war is to use your power.

I think at this point what you're doing is placing rose tinted glasses over him to make it seem like his noninterventionalism is anything less than a Huntingtonianly inspired idea of Cultural Claves where we either meet them with full force or none at all.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

I think at this point what you're doing is placing rose tinted glasses over him to make it seem like his noninterventionalism is anything less than a Huntingtonianly inspired idea of Cultural Claves where we either meet them with full force or none at all.

But that is what war is right? If you, SXE were my Caliph and I was your general and you told me to work up and investigate an invasion of Iran... I would tell you a few things as an honest person:

1) The Iranian people have demonstrated their ability to resist western backed invaders like Hussein with great bravery (temerity?)

2) The Iranians are going to unite and see Sunnis like you and me as invaders and dictators, meant to subvert their will.

3) They are not a paper tiger... they are not as armed as the US... but they certainly do have resources at this point with which to fight a bloody battle.

I would offer you an analysis that we could set up trade and diplomatic overtures with Iran because at this point, they are not heading anywhere. They are there to stay.

If you still refused and ordered me to act, and if the Majlis approved your actions, and the people were in a frenzy of support for you (say if they were as gullible as the Americans in this corperate controlled media environment) I would have two options:

A) Refuse to serve and object to the war. My hope would be to garner enough support here to undo your support. If the system is as similar to what it is in the US, then I would be limited because the most popular figures in congress would have rubber stamped your move.

or

B) Comprehend that your action is going to take us into a bloody conflict. If we are going to do this we better make sure we have our ducks in a row and are ready to utilize overwhelming fire power against the Iranians to show them that resistance is futile. Otherwise, you will bog us down in an endless insurgency that will destabilize our holdings in adjacent countries and destroy our own.

Scheuer chose B.

[khushal]

Not at all, it describes those who are slaves of Pakistan as stooges, i.e. the Taliban and those who want to avoid the deaths of Afghan lives as saints

the Afghan official tells him "your martyrs are like my flesh and blood. Your prisoners are like my brothers, and we will release them. We are brothers, we shouldn't be killing each other."

Come on, the Afghan government has not matched actions with these words of the Afghan official. How is the average afghan supposed to believe this when they see the opposite with their eyes. the Pashtuns have been marginalized and have been cheated from their rights in the nation. The Taliban is a reaction to this marginalization. They were nothing in 2002 because people were hopefull on the new Afghan government, once the peopl erealized that the afghan government was nothing but empty words, the taliban was coming back by the people and of the people

The afghan official saying this is just trying to portray him as a saint adn the resistance as stooges. Thats all the statement does which is a false picture.

[ScimitarXEdge]

the Afghan official tells him "your martyrs are like my flesh and blood. Your prisoners are like my brothers, and we will release them. We are brothers, we shouldn't be killing each other."

Come on, the Afghan government has not matched actions with these words of the Afghan official. How is the average afghan supposed to believe this when they see the opposite with their eyes. the Pashtuns have been marginalized and have been cheated from their rights in the nation. The Taliban is a reaction to this marginalization. They were nothing in 2002 because people were hopefull on the new Afghan government, once the peopl erealized that the afghan government was nothing but empty words, the taliban was coming back by the people

tell Afghans in Afghanistan that, not me
Poll: Majority of Afghans Support Talks With Taliban | CNSnews.com

Poll: Majority of Afghans Support Talks With Taliban
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
By Katharine Houreld, Associated Press
Kabul, Afghanistan (AP) - An overwhelming majority of Afghans support the government's efforts to negotiate peace with Taliban insurgents, according to a poll released Tuesday that ranks insecurity as the top concern among citizens, followed by unemployment and corruption.
Some 83 percent of Afghan adults back efforts to secure the country through negotiations with armed, anti-government groups, the survey conducted by the Asia Foundation said. That's up from 71 percent last year.

I'm a logitician such appeals to emotion don't do much to sway my opinion

[khushal]

tell Afghans in Afghanistan that, not me
Poll: Majority of Afghans Support Talks With Taliban | CNSnews.com



I'm a logitician such appeals to emotion don't do much to sway my opinion

ofcourse they want an end to the conflict, so does the american public. but what does that have to do with the Afghan government not backinng action with their words of brotherhood as though they were saints.

[BarakzaiAbdali]

tell Afghans in Afghanistan that, not me
Poll: Majority of Afghans Support Talks With Taliban | CNSnews.com



I'm a logitician such appeals to emotion don't do much to sway my opinion

Oh Come on, did you read the article???

This is absurd:

"The Afghan army enjoyed the highest level of public confidence with 91 percent of expressing some to a great deal of confidence in it. The Afghan police was the next most respected institution. NATO has been intensively training both forces and recently increased police salaries to help try to counter corruption."

So you expect me to accept that as evidence of the Afghan publics rejection of the Taliban? When the Afghan public rejects something or someone they treat it as they did Russia... or the British. If anything, the remainder of the article indicates a 50/50 split when it comes to 50% being dissastified with the Taliban (what do the other 50% say?).. and 50% also being upset with the Afghan government.

But that confidence in the army quote blows the whole reference out of the water.

[khushal]

The statement you posted "Noor Ul Aziz, Taliban Defector, said, "How do you view my martyrs? He said, your martyrs are like my flesh and blood. Your prisoners are like my brothers, and we will release them. We are brothers, we shouldn't be killing each other."

Its just him trying to convince himself as well as others why he came over to the government, he wants to portray as though he is taking the moral high ground. My poiint is that the statement is portraying the afghan official as a saint when in fact it is because of these mostly corrupt afghan officials that the TAliban exists as a force.

[khushal]

This is how the American lost the Korengal Valley, it was the complete opposite of what the afghan official talks about as brotherhood and how the martyrs are his flesh and blood. whatever

Afghanistan’s Strategic Dilemma

Getting involved in local disputes

[ScimitarXEdge]

ofcourse they want an end to the conflict, so does the american public. but what does that have to do with the Afghan government not backinng action with their words of brotherhood as though they were saints.

It has to do with afghans who live in Afghanistan disagreeing with you, the whole "if they're saints" stuff is just theatrics of emotional appeals.

[ScimitarXEdge]

Oh Come on, did you read the article???

This is absurd:

"The Afghan army enjoyed the highest level of public confidence with 91 percent of expressing some to a great deal of confidence in it. The Afghan police was the next most respected institution. NATO has been intensively training both forces and recently increased police salaries to help try to counter corruption."

So you expect me to accept that as evidence of the Afghan publics rejection of the Taliban? When the Afghan public rejects something or someone they treat it as they did Russia... or the British. If anything, the remainder of the article indicates a 50/50 split when it comes to 50% being dissastified with the Taliban (what do the other 50% say?).. and 50% also being upset with the Afghan government.

But that confidence in the army quote blows the whole reference out of the water.

you just can't say baaaaah the article is ridiculous because it doesn't flow with your debate Barakzai wrora. Well you can but that lacks intellectual credibility

They don't reject the Taliban per se, just what their ideological platform has to offer. If they rejected them, they wouldn't want to reassimilate them back into society.

You're selectively reading as far as I can grasp

The report also said that 55 percent of Afghan adults had no sympathy at all for the armed opposition groups -- up from 36 percent last year -- and another 26 percent had only a little sympathy

It's clearly NOT 50/50..... 55% + 26%= 81%

You can probably draw straw hairs on phrases like "little sympathy"; but little sympathy means a whoooole lotta lack of sympathy. The overwhelming majority of Afghans don't support Talibs.

The confidence in the army does surprise me as well, but I won't discredit it; after ll if you want us to believe Taliban represent legitimate peoples resistance, I'd say that's absurd on the scales of Bat Boy Escapes Tabloids.

Now the news article maybe putting their own spin into things; but results are results, Taliban aren't really that liked. Sorry bro

[ScimitarXEdge]

The statement you posted "Noor Ul Aziz, Taliban Defector, said, "How do you view my martyrs? He said, your martyrs are like my flesh and blood. Your prisoners are like my brothers, and we will release them. We are brothers, we shouldn't be killing each other."

Its just him trying to convince himself as well as others why he came over to the government, he wants to portray as though he is taking the moral high ground. My poiint is that the statement is portraying the afghan official as a saint when in fact it is because of these mostly corrupt afghan officials that the TAliban exists as a force.

I don't see that, but if you're going to argue from such a bias, then similiarly it can be argued that your eagerness to disparage his sincerity implicates some bitterness that he rejected the Taliban and feel threatened by his willingness to expose his former comrades for what they actually are.

this guy was WITH the Taliban, if corrupt officials like him are why the Taliban exist in the first place, it demonstrates how thoroughly corrupt the Taliban must be if they welcome such people into the fold for 10 years or more.

Such arguments backfire because they only hurt the taliban;

[ScimitarXEdge]

This is how the American lost the Korengal Valley, it was the complete opposite of what the afghan official talks about as brotherhood and how the martyrs are his flesh and blood. whatever

Afghanistan’s Strategic Dilemma

Getting involved in local disputes

doesn't really trump the collected data though